1951-03-05

Mr. Rene N. Jutras (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I should like to draw to the attention of the house for a few minutes the very informative and highly enjoyable trip a group of us were privileged to make to the city of Saint John.
We live in a wide and large country indeed. In our younger days we all had to memorize facts and figures about the other cities and provinces of our great country. During the last war some of us were able to pay short visits to, or at least go through most of, the provinces of Canada, but of course we saw them only in the dark and sombre attire of war. The need of first-hand knowledge, the need to know better our sister cities and provinces, is constant.
Our short stay in Saint John was indeed a revelation to many and a most enjoyable experience to all. To be shown the actual efforts, to see for ourselves the concrete achievements, to witness the possibilities of the future, and to hear the enthusiastic and genuine professions of faith of the people of Saint John in their proud city which their meticulous and gracious hospitality has so endeared' to us, is certainly an occasion worthy of mention in this house. I know I speak for the entire group when I say we are genuinely grateful to our congenial and devoted friend and fellow member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Riley) for his kind invitation to visit his city. We and our wives were very proud to be part of the Dan Riley flock for the week end. More attentive and efficient direction I am sure would not have been possible.
Our sincere and deep gratitude is also unreservedly extended to the Saint John board of trade, our gracious host in the city. With complete disregard of themselves, the members of that organization made available generous accommodation and carried out elaborate arrangements to ensure to us a most enjoyable stay, giving us the opportunity to learn a great deal about them and get to know them better. We are particularly indebted to the president and his charming wife, Mr. and Mrs. Wasson. We wish to
thank His Honour Lieutenant Governor MacLaren for his highly appreciated hospitality and his spirited and most enjoyable company; also the government of New Brunswick and its popular premier, Mr. McNair, for their complimentary entertainment and kind hospitality, as well as His Worship Mayor George E. Howard and his lady. Our gratitude is also extended to Mr. Crump and his company for the 'concern and courtesy shown us all through the trip and particularly for their grand and unique hospitality on the proud Empress of Canada. We salute Captain Dobson.
Our thanks also go to the Saint John Dry-dock Company Limited and Saint John Marine Transport Limited for the opportunity they gave us to view the city and the harbour from the sea. We also extend our thanks to Senator McLean and Mr. Brennan, to the various industries of Saint John, to the various devoted committees and all those who made their facilities available to us, and finally to all the citizens of that city. It was with a deep sense of gratitude that we said au revoir, and it is with the same feeling that we say thank you.



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, presented to the house on Thursday, March 1, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 115, to incorporate Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company.-Mr. Laing.
Bill No. 116, respecting British Columbia Telephone Company.-Mr. Applewhaite.
Bill No. 117, to incorporate Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Company.-Mr. Bennett.
Bill No. 118, to incorporate Border Pipe Line Corporation.-Mr. Robinson.

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the correct place for me to ask for leave to move, seconded

Wheat
by the member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the government to meet the legitimate demands of wheat producers by announcing a final payment of 8.3 cents per bushel for wheat in the five-year pool, when farmers are entitled to a final payment of not less than 25 cents.
In view of a meeting being held in Regina tomorrow by representatives of western agriculture, I believe that this is a matter of urgent importance.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing order No. 31 reads: Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house (when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business (standing order 15) has been concluded and before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon.
I have a recollection that last year I made a ruling that the motion should be made after questions and before the orders of the day are entered upon. However, without deciding definitely upon that, I shall go on with the second paragraph:
The member desiring to make such a motion rises in his place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and states the matter.
The hon. member has done that.
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the speaker, who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house. If objection is taken, the Speaker requests those members who support the motion to rise in their places and if more than twenty members rise accordingly, the Speaker calls upon the member who has asked for leave.
I must decide whether the motion is in order. There is some doubt as to whether this is the proper time to make such a motion. Without deciding that point I shall allow the motion to stand on this occasion as being in order. I must also decide whether the question is of urgent public importance. My recollection is that when the announcement was made concerning this payment, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) stated there would be ample opportunity to debate this matter when the house went into committee of supply on the supplementary estimates, which he stated would be brought down shortly. If my memory serves me correctly,
I understood the Minister of Finance to say that would be within about ten days, which would be the end of this week or the beginning of next.
The member moving the motion has stated there is to be a meeting in Regina tomorrow.
I do not know the nature of the meeting, but 
even so, it would seem to me this question can be fully discussed in the near future, so it would not come within the rule concerning urgency. I cannot allow the motion to stand.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
FISH CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA Mr. Kickham:
1.	What was the per capita consumption of fish in each of the provinces of Canada for the latest year during which statistics are available?
2.	What was the per capita consumption of fish in the leading cities of Canada for the latest year for which statistics are available?
3.	What was the per capita consumption of fish in each of the leading fish producing and consuming nations for the latest year during which statistics
are available?

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What are the names of the present members of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	What are the present addresses of these members and what geographical areas and/or occupations respectively do they represent?
3.	Have any of these members been engaged in organized political activity? If so, which members, at what times, and on whose behalf?
4.	What are the qualifications of the members for their positions on the board of governors?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Messrs. A. Davidson Dunton, Rene Morin, Adrien Pouliot, F. J. Crawford, G. Douglas Steele, W. H. Phillips, J. A. Corry, Jesse P. Tripp and Mrs. Mary E. Farr.
2.	Mr. A. Davidson Dunton, Ottawa, Ont., full-time chairman of the board of governors of the C.B.C.
Province of Quebec:	Mr. Rene Morin,
Montreal, P.Q.; Mr. Adrien Pouliot, Quebec, P.Q.
Province of Ontario: Mr. F. J. Crawford, Toronto, Ont.; Dr. J. A. Corry, Kingston, Ont.; Mr. W. H. Phillips, Ottawa, Ont.
Maritime provinces: Dr. G. Douglas Steele, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Prairie provinces:	Mr. Jesse P. Tripp,
Oxbow, Sask.
British Columbia: Mrs. Mary E. Farr, Victoria, B.C.
3.	No information is available concerning the political activities of the members of the board of governors prior to or since their appointment.
4.	Mr. Dunton: full-time member of the board, a newspaper editor, general manager of the wartime information board.
Dr. J. A. Corry: LL.B., B.C.L. (Oxford), LL.M., F.R.S.C., professor of political science dept., Queen's university.


Mr.  F. J. Crawford@: finance and business.


Mrs. Mary E. Farr:: graduate of Toronto university in home economics.


Mr. Rene Morin:: president, General Trusts of Canada, financier; originally connected with radio commission of 1936.

Questions


Mr. W. H. Phillips:: vice-president, order of railroad telegraphers.


Mr. Adrien Pouliot:: dean of the faculty of science of Laval university.
Dr. G. Douglas Steele: M.A., LL.D., principal of Prince of Wales college.


Mr. Jesse P. Tripp@: druggist and optometrist.


CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. Fulton:: 1. What were the numbers of enlistments in the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian army and the Royal Canadian Air Force, respectively in each month in the year 1950?
2. What were the	totals of	all ranks	struck off
strength for all causes in each months?		service for the same


Mr. Campney:: 1. Service enlistments in	1950.	AirNavy	Army	ForceJan	181	343	322Feb	, 73	226	112Mar	. 17	71	136Apr	. 35	45	134May 	, 53	40	107June 	94	42	130July 	70	169	95Aug	, 240	7116	326Sept	443	4146	418Oct	339	860	434Nov	262	894	436Dec	149	900	4772. Service releases in 1950.	AirNavy	Army	ForceJan	61	126	107Feb	77	121	84Mar	74	158	131Apr	58	134	101May 	65	136	120June	69	139	139July 	61	119	148Aug	62	93	113Sept	51	219	76Oct	95	200	82Nov	125	310	71Dec	131	510	91



LABOUR FORCE


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What was the total number of persons in the labour force in Canada, and by provinces, in the month of January in each year from 1948 to 1951, both inclusive?
2.	What was the total number of persons employed in Canada, and by provinces, in the month of January in each year from 1948 to 1951, both inclusive?
3.	What was the total number of persons unemployed in Canada, and by provinces, in the month of January in each year from 1948 to 1951, both inclusive?
	|


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: 1.	The total number of persons in the civilian labour force in Canada for the periods nearest to January for which information is available, was:
February 21, 1948	 4,825,000
November 20, 1948	 4,964,000
March 5, 1949	 4,899,000
October 29, 1949	 5,200,000
March 4, 1950	 5,108,000
November 4, 1950	 5,201,000
The above data include Newfoundland for October 29, 1949, and subsequent dates. Information is not available for all provinces. By regions, the total number of persons in the civilian labour force was:
Newfoundland
February 21, 1948	
November 20, 1948	
March 5, 1949	
October 29, 1949	 114,000
March 4, 1950	 101,000
November 4, 1950	 103,000
Maritime provinces
February 21, 1948	 425,000
November 20, 1948	 442,000
March 5, 1949	 428,000
October 29, 1949	 438,000
March 4, 1950	 437,000
November 4, 1950	 431,000
Quebec
February 21, 1948	 1,348,000
November 20, 1948	 1,390,000
March 5, 1949	 1,385,000
October 29, 1949	 1,437,000
March 4, 1950	 1,411,000
November 4, 1950	 1,448,000
Ontario
February 21, 1948	 1,703,000
November 20, 1948	   1,750,000
March 5, 1949	 1,751,000
October 29, 1949	 1,798,000
March 4, 1950	 1,779,000
November 4, 1950	 1,817,000
Prairie provinces
February 21, 1948	 928,000
November 20, 1948	 945,000
March 5, 1949	 912,000
October 29, 1949	 973,000
March 4, 1950	 945,000
November 4, 1950	 971,000

British Columbia
February 21, 1948	
November 20, 1948	
March 5, 1949	
October 29, 1949	
March 4, 1950	
November 4, 1950	
These data are based on the sample labour force survey of the dominion bureau of statistics. In this survey, the civilian labour force is defined as that portion of the civilian non-institutional population fourteen years of age and over that had jobs or that did not have jobs but were seeking work during the survey week.
2.	The total number of persons with jobs in Canada for the periods nearest to January for which information is available, was:
February 21, 1948	 4,669,000
November 20, 1948	 4,858,000
March 5, 1949	 4,700,000
October 29, 1949	 5,053,000
March 4, 1950	 4,796,000
November 4, 1950	 5,084,000
The above data include Newfoundland for October 29,	1949, and subsequent dates.
Information is not available for all provinces. By regions, the total number of persons with jobs was:
Newfoundland
Feb. 21, 1948 . . Nov. 20, 1948 . . Mar. 5, 1949 . , Oct. 29, 1949 . , Mar. 4, 1950 .. Nov. 4, 1950 . .		100,000 79.000 95.000
Maritime provinces Feb. 21, 1948 	
Nov. 20, 1948 	
Mar. 5, 1949 	
Oct. 29, 1949 	
Mar. 4, 1950 	
Nov. 4, 1950 	400.000 424.000 403.000 416.000 395.000 410.000Feb. 21, 1948 . Nov. 20, 1948 . Mar. 5, 1949 . Oct. 29, 1949 . Mar. 4, 1950 . Nov. 4, 1950 .	Quebec	1.300.000 1.360.000 1.318.000 1.393.000 1.309.000 1.409.000Feb. 21, 1948 . Nov. 20, 1948 . Mar. 5, 1949 . Oct. 29, 1949 . Mar. 4, 1950 . Nov. 4, 1950 .	Ontario	1.663.000 1.725.000 1.695.000 1.761.000 1.706.000 1.793.000
905.000
926.000
883.000
956.000
902.000
958.000
British Columbia
Feb. 21, 1948	 401,000
Nov. 20, 1948	 423,000
Mar. 5, 1949	 401,000
Oct. 29, 1949	 427,000
Mar. 4, 1950	 405,000
Nov. 4, 1950	 419,000
These data are based on the sample labour force survey of the dominion bureau of statistics. In this survey, persons with jobs are made up of two groups: (1) those who did any work in the survey week for pay or profit or who did unpaid work which contributed to the running of a farm or business operated by a relative; (2) those who had jobs but did not work during the survey week because of illness, bad weather, vacation, labour dispute, or temporary lay-off with definite instructions to return to work within 30 days of the time of being laid off.
3.	Information on the number of persons unemployed in Canada is obtained from two main sources.
First, the sample labour force survey of the dominion bureau of statistics provides estimates of the total number of persons without jobs and actively seeking work at four quarterly intervals each year. This information for Canada as a whole for the periods closest to January for which information is available was as follows:
February 21, 1948	 156,000
November 20, 1948	 106,000
March 5, 1949	 199,000
October 29, 1949	 147,000
March 4, 1950	 312,000
November 4, 1950	 117,000
The above data include Newfoundland for October 29,	1949, and subsequent dates.
Information is not available for all provinces. By regions, the total number of persons without jobs and actively seeking work was:
Newfoundland
February 21, 1948	 -
November 20, 1948	 -
March 5, 1949	 -
October 29, 1949	 14,000
March 4, 1950	 22,000
November 4, 1950	 8,000
Questions Prairie provinces
421.000	Feb. 21, 1948	
437.000	Nov. 20, 1948	
423.000	Mar. 5, 1949	
440.000	Oct. 29, 1949	
435.000	Mar. 4, 1950	
431.000	Nov. 4, 1950	
888	HOUSE OF
Questions
Maritime provinces
February 21, 1948	 25,000
November 20, 1948	 18,000
March 5, 1949	 25,000
October 29, 1949	 22,000
March 4, 1950	 22,000
November 4, 1950	 21,000
Quebec
February 21, 1948	 48,000
November 20,	1948	 30,000
March 5, 1949		 67,000
October 29, 1949	 44,000
March 4, 1950	 102,000
November 4, 1950	 39,000
Ontario
February 21, 1948	 40,000
November 20,	1948	 25,000
March 5, 1949		 56,000
October 29, 1949	 37,000
March 4, 1950	 73,000
November 4, 1950	 24,000
Prairie provinces
February 21, 1948	 23,000
November 20,	1948	 19,000
March 5, 1949		 29,000
October 29, 1949	 17,000
March 4, 1950	 43,000
November 4, 1950	 13,000
British Columbia
February 21, 1948	 20,000
November 20,	1948	 14,000
March 5, 1949		 22,000
October 29, 1949	 13,000
March 4, 1950	 30,000
November 4, 1950	 12,000
The number of persons without jobs and actively seeking work usually increases quite markedly from November of each year to January of the next year.
Information is also available on the number of applications for employment on hand at national employment service offices. These data, for Canada and all the provinces, are shown below:
January 29, 1948
Newfoundland	 -
Prince Edward Island	 1,750
Nova Scotia	 14,453
New Brunswick	 7,154
Quebec	 51,472
Ontario	 50,329
Manitoba	 13,982
Saskatchewan	 8,279
Alberta	 9,010
British Columbia	 29,627
Canada	 186,056

February 3, 1949
Newfoundland	 -
Prince Edward Island	 2,260
Nova Scotia	 15,387
New Brunswick	 11,075
Quebec	 71,342
Ontario	 66,956
Manitoba	 17,371
Saskatchewan	 9,901
Alberta	 10,769
British Columbia	 51,738
Canada	 256,799
February 2, 1950
Newfoundland	 14,650
Prince Edward Island	 2,615
Nova Scotia	 20,338
New Brunswick	 17,310
Quebec	 109,263
Ontario	 89,850
Manitoba	 23,305
Saskatchewan	 12,866
Alberta	 16,700
British Columbia	 68,658
Canada	 375,555
February 1, 1951
Newfoundland	 9,140
Prince Edward Island	 2,818
Nova Scotia	 16,423
New Brunswick	 12,942
Quebec	 89,257
Ontario	 68,300
Manitoba	 21,029
Saskatchewan	 13,417
Alberta	 16,702
British Columbia	 50,018
Canada	 300,046
The labour force data on the number of persons without jobs and actively seeking work do not include any persons who worked from 1 to 14 hours in the survey week, some of whom no doubt were looking for regular full-time jobs. They also do not include those persons who had jobs but did not work at them during the survey week because of bad weather, temporary lay-off, illness and other reasons. Some of these workers would be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits and therefore might be registered with the national employment service.
In respect to the national employment service data, it must be remembered that not all unemployed workers register at employment offices, and that some of those who do might find jobs of their own and not notify the national employment service. In this latter case, their applications remain on file for either fifteen or thirty days after they

were last in touch with the office, depending on whether or not they were also claiming unemployment insurance benefits.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


Mr. Pearkes:: How many persons of Chinese racial origin became Canadian citizens during 1950?


Mr. Bradley:: 2,577 persons of Chinese
racial origin born outside of Canada became Canadian citizens in the calendar year 1950.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1 and 2.
(a)	Manufactured in Canada 1949 (latest available)
(i)	Passenger automobiles	
(ii)	Trucks and commercial vehicles...
(1950)
(b)	(i) Passenger automobiles imported
into Canada from United States	
(ii) Trucks and commercial vehicles imported into Canada from United States	
(c)	(i) Passenger automobiles imported into Canada of United Kingdom
manufacture	
(ii) Trucks and commercial vehicles imported into Canada of United Kingdom manufacture	
* Retail value not available.
Note:
Questions



IMPORTS OF MOTOR VEHICLES


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	During the calendar year 1950, how many (1) passenger automobiles; (ii) trucks and commercial vehicles, were (a) manufactured in Canada; (b) imported into Canada of United States manufacture; (c) imported into Canada of United Kingdom manufacture?
2.	What were the total retail or duty paid values in each case?
Number Selling value at works* $ 193,556 277,660,998 99,028 146,697,354		
Number 3,154	Value $ 6,038,482	Customs Duty $ 1,056,7351,616	6,056,200	1,059,83977,658	68,396,490	-5,180	4,893,480	(1)	Imports of passenger automobiles and trucks from United States include vehicles manufactured in other countries but purchased in the United States. No break-down by country of manufacture available.(2)	Values are those shown on customs entries for customs duty purposes and do not include freight, shipping or other handling charges.(3)	Customs duties as shown do not include excise taxes or sales taxes which are not recorded in trade statistics.



IMPORTS OF PARTS FOR BRITISH CARS


Mr. Dickey:: What is the duty paid value of replacement parts and spares imported into Canada during the calendar year 1950, for cars of United Kingdom manufacture?


George James McIlraith: Imports of all automobile parts from the United Kingdom were valued at $4,232,470. Customs duty collected amounted to $57,759. In addition, imports of engines and parts of engines for motor vehicles from the United Kingdom were valued at $543,119, and customs duty collected amounted to $10,276.
Note: (1) No break-down is available to show replacement parts and spares separate from parts for the manufacture of cars.
(2)	Values are those shown on customs entries for customs duty purposes and do not include freight, shipping or other handling charges.
(3)	Customs duties as shown do not include excise taxes or sales taxes which are not recorded in trade statistics.



PARTS IMPORTED AND MOTOR VEHICLES PRODUCED IN CANADA

Mr. Dickey:: 1.	During the calendar year 1950, what was the total value of parts imported into Canada from the United States for inclusion in (a) passenger automobiles; (b) trucks and commercial vehicles produced in Canada?
2.	What relation does the value of imported component parts bear to the value of vehicles produced in Canada (a) passenger automobiles; (b) trucks and commercial vehicles?

Questions


Mr. Mcllraith:: 1.	(a) and (b) Imports of all parts imported from the United States for passenger automobiles, trucks and commercial vehicles were valued at $154,107,515. In addition, engines and parts for passenger automobiles, trucks and commercial vehicles were! valued at $17,756,228.
Note: There is no break-down to show the value of parts for passenger automobiles separate from trucks and commercial vehicles. Also, there is no record to show imports of parts for inclusion in vehicles produced in Canada separate from parts for replacement or repair purposes.
2.	Information not available.



PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT-APPOINTMENTS IN NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. Browne (SI. John's West):: 
Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.	73,912.
2.	See statement below.
Immigration to Canada, showing country of last permanent residence, for the calendar year 1950
Africa (British)	 128
Africa (not British)	 85
Albania	 24

Australia	 352
Austria	 619
Belgium	 956
Bermuda	 52
Bulgaria	 86
Central America	 25
China	 1,814
Czechoslovakia	 1,698
Denmark	 932
Eire	 452
England	 9,077
Esthonia	 1,630
Finland	 445
France	 1,399
Germany	 3,815
Greece	 815
Holland	 7,169
Hungary	 1,777
India	 97
Ireland (Northern)	 626
Israel	 147
Italy	 8,993
Japan	 14
Jugoslavia	 1,489
Latvia	 1,629
Lesser British Isles	 26
Lithuania	 900
Malta	 856
Mexico	 16
New Zealand	 201
Norway	 234
Poland	 9,747
Portugal	 16
Roumania	 1,034
Russia	 1,224
St. Pierre and Miquelon	 16
Scotland	 2,802
South America	 498
Spain	 20
Sweden	 589
Switzerland	 533
Syria	 90
Ukraine	 84
United States	 7,821
Wales	 164
West Indies (British)	 364
West Indies (not British)	 83
Others	 249
Total	 73,912



CANADIAN FORCES


Mr. Hodgson:: How many persons enlisted in the (a) army: (b) navy; (c) air force, during each of the months of January and February, 1951?


Ralph Osborne Campney: January February 1951	1951
(a)	Army	
1687	1200(b)	Navy	
288	448(c)	Air force	
1321	1226



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Browne (Si. John's Wesl):: 1.	How many appointments have been made in the post office department, province of Newfoundland, since April 1, 1950?
Questions
2. What are their names and respective salaries? Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):
1.	108.
2. (a) Staff post offices
Salary-
Name	Post Office	Per annumSceviour, D. P	
Corner	Brook,	Nfld	$1,380Parsons, W. H	
"	"	"	
1,380Snow, R. J	
"	"	"	
i.380Noel, M	
"	"	"	
i-380Gushue, R. G	
"	"	"	
M80Brown, J. W	
"	"	"	
i-388Trenchard, R. K	
St. John's, Nfld	
1,800Tansley, H. E	
"	"	
I.888Reid, R. D	
"	"	
I.888Power, N. J	
"	"	
I.888Hooder, T. J	
"	"	
1>888Ay 1 word, J. J	
"	"	
I.888Butler, L. B	
"	"	
I.888Hawco, P. J	
"	"	
I-888Fennell, L. M	
"	"	
I.888Barrett, G. A	
"	"	
I.388Constantine, P. J	
"	"	
1,380McNamara, J. J	
"	"	
I.388Seward, J. F	
"	"	
I-388Kerrvian, G. M. (Mrs.)	
"	"	
(per hour) 50cDawe, E. W. (Miss)	
"	"	
I,888(b)	Revenue post offices NameGordon Batten	
Harold E. Croucher 

Mrs. Annie A. Bennett . Mrs. Estelle Traverse ...
Mrs. Best Cave	
Leo M. Barry	
Allan Squires	
Andrew P. Pye	
Mrs. Vina D. Humphries
Colin Pike	
Mrs. Violet E. Seymour .
Cyril Weeks	
Gordon C. Smith	
Miss Isabel Bennett ...
Robert R. Lewis	
Veronica Whiffin	
Henry Hynes	
Reginald Durnford	
Miss Regina Bruce	
Mrs. Mona Pelley	
Mrs. Elizabeth M. Wells . Miss Merida Benson ....
Miss Rita Hunt	
Michael Terry	
Miss Hannah D. Fleet ...
Lloyd Prior	
Lawrence Leawood	
Mrs. Frieda Hettasch ...
Post Office	Salary
Bareneed	$ 300
Beaumont	 360
Black Duck Siding	 120
Brewley	 120
Brighton	 300
Brigus	 1,080
Brownsdale	 540
Cape Charles	 120
Cape Freels	 180
Charleston	 420
Cowards Island	 180
Duntara	 180
Elliotts Cove	 300
Flat Bay (St. Georges)	 180
Fleur de Lys	 300
Fox Harbour	 420
Fox Island River	 120
Francois	 300
Freshwater (PB)	 600
Georges Brook	 120
Goulds (Brigus)	 180
Grates Cove	 420
Griquet	 300
Groais Island	 120
Harmon Field	 2,100
Hermitage	 420
Hickmans Harbour	 480
Hopedale	 I88
Questions

Name
Miss Effie M. Normore ..
Samuel Bungay	
Frank Haines	
Mrs. Wm. Haliday	
Mrs. Monica Cooper ....
Gerald Lawton	
Violet West	
Charles Davis	
Miss Phyllis Jones	
Mrs. Monica Bailey	
Mrs. Cecelia R. Young ...
Mrs. Maud Thomas	
Mrs. Florence Howe	
James M. King	
Augustus F. Fitzgerald . ..
Oswald Pennell	
Walter W. Chaffey	
Mrs. Melita Hale	
Miss Estley L. Ginn	
Mrs. Selina Smith	
Mrs. Flossie Warren	
Mrs. Lillian Moore	
Mrs. Annie Elliott	
Mrs. Edward Mandville . Mrs. Mary L. Gould . . ..
Mrs. Rose Maclsaac	
John Clothier	
Miss Della R. Webber ...
Hayward Green	
Miss Dora M. Ayre	
Mrs. Jean H. Hillier ....
Patrick Quinlan	
Samuel Strickland	
Miss Geneva R. Cake ....
Ross Coffin	
James Hodder	
Mrs. Martha J. Troke ... Mrs. Esmeralda Sutton ...
Miss Bridget Davis	
Miss Lucy LaSaga	
James Holmes	
Mrs. Wm. J. Kennedy ...
Adam Mathews	
Mrs. Leticia Lambert . ...
Wm. A. Brazil	
Miss Alice Tucker	
Thomas E. Greeley	
Miss Mary J. Power	
Mrs. Raymond Parsons ...
(c)	Assistants Name
Lome R. Elms	
Chas. Noseworthy	
Thos. C. GUI	
Kenneth Reid	
Miss Vera Balsam	
Miss Mottee Manuel	
Miss Viola M. Bennett ... Miss Margaret Bursey ... Mrs. Harvey T. Newhook
Post Office	Salary
Horwood	 360
Jacksons Arm	 300
Jamestown	 420
Jobs Cove	 120
Kilbride	 120
Kings Cove	 720
Ladle Cove	 300
Lance Amour	 120
Little Bays Islands	 540
Little Harbour West	 120
Marches Point	 120
Middle Arm	 120
Millertown Junction	 540
MUltown	 300
Mobile	 120
Musgrave Harbour	 600
Musgravetown	 780
Newstead	 420
Newstead	 420
Normans Cove	 360
North West Brook	 120
Notre Dame Junction	 120
Pasadena	 480
Point La Haye	 120
Port au Choix	 300
Port au Port	 780
Port aux Basques	 1,140
Port Blandford	 960
Port Hope Simpson	 120
Port Saunders	  540
Quirpon	 180
Red Head Cove	 180
Rencontre West	 360
Roberts Arm	 360
St. Albans	 600
St. Bernards	 360
St. Chads	 120
St. Josephs Cove	 120
St. Juliens	 120
Shallop Cove	 120
Shearstown	 120
Shoal Point	 120
Silver Hare Island	 120
South Port	 120
Spaniards Bay	 1,200
Thorburn Road	 120
Tilton	   120
Tors Cove	   300
Trinity (TB)	 1,320
Post Office	Salary
Bay Roberts	$1,080
Bell Island Mines	 1,080
Botwood	 1,080
Botwood	 1,080
Clarenville	     900
Deer Lake	 1,080
Harmon Field	    900
Windsor	   900
Windsor (part time)	 490
At Carbonear, John S. Clarke is acting as a military substitute with a salary of $1,080 a year. TMr. Langlois (Gaspe).]



IMMIGRATION


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: How many displaced persons were brought to Canada during the year 1950?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 22,906.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Fraser:: 1.	How much butter did the dominion government and its agencies have in storage on December 31,
1950?
2.	To what firms or individuals did the government through its agencies sell butter during the months of January and February, 1951?
3.	What amount of butter was sold to each firm, or individual, and at what price in each case?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Jean-François Pouliot: 
George James McIlraith: Return tabled.



LAVAL UNIVERSITY


Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the notice recently published at Quebec by the Laval students employment committee and signed by one named Racine, concerning positions to be filled in connection with the census.


Mr.   Cole@Verdun-La Salle: Return tabled.
CENSUS COMMISSIONERS Mr. Pouliol:
For a copy of all instructions given to the census commissioners since their appointment.


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.



BUREAU OF STATISTICS


Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence between one named Jean Jacques Lefebvre, of the dominion bureau of statistics, at Ottawa, and the census commissioners, and any officer of the unemployment insurance commission, since the appointment of the census commissioners.


George James McIlraith: There is no correspondence between one Jean-Jacques Lefebvre of the dominion bureau of statistics and the census commissioners.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



PRINTING BUREAU EMPLOYEES


Mr. Knowles:: For a copy of all letters dated since July 1, 1950, written to the civil service commission or to the
Motions jor Papers
chairman or secretary thereof by employees or former employees of the government printing bureau.


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: There is no desire to withhold any information that the hon. member may wish to get; but I am informed that the files are kept in such a way that, to comply with the order as it would be drafted on this motion, would involve going over all the files of the correspondence with anyone who since that date has been in the employ of the printing bureau. I do not think the hon. member would wish to have unnecessary work done. If he could indicate in a more precise manner what he really wishes to get, there would be no objection to endeavouring to comply with the request.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I	wonder if	the	Prime
Minister would be satisfied if I indicated in a brief word now the kind of letters that are sought by this motion.


An hon. Member:: Reword it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I	am asking	the	Prime
Minister.


Mr. St. Laurent:: I am sure the hon. member does not want a lot of unnecessary work done. If he can say anything that would limit the amount of work that would be required, we should be glad; there is no desire to delay the return.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The request I am making is for letters since July 1, 1950, complaining about working conditions in the printing bureau, and for letters from employees who have left the bureau, stating the reasons why they left.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They are not catalogued in that way. We can get from the printing bureau all the names of those who have left, and go through their files to see if they stated the reasons why. If that is satisfactory I will see that it is done.


Some hon. Members:: Dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion to be carried or dropped?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that the house might carry the motion subject to the conditions which have been indicated by the Prime Minister and which I have accepted.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member will reword his motion.


Some hon. Members:: Dropped.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stated! certain conditions, and I am prepared to accept them. Is that not satisfactory?

Business of the House Mr. St. Laurent: If it is satisfactory to deal only with the files of those who have left the service since the date mentioned, I think we can have them gone through.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion carried, in accordance with the last statement made by the Prime Minister.



AGREEMENT WITH UNITED KINGDOM

Major James William Coldwell: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda, or other documents between any minister, department, official, or the government of Canada and any minister, department, official, or His- Majesty's government of the United Kingdom, relating to the final settlement of the four-year agreement, 1946, for the sale and purchase of Canadian wheat, including correspondence, and other documents relating to the price agreed to be paid during the last two years of the agreement.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I ask the hon. member if he would allow this motion to stand for a few days. There is no desire to delay the matter, but we should like to get together whatever the terms of this motion would cover-and they are fairly broad-and then determine as to which of them there should be a conference with the representatives of the United Kingdom government before an order is made.


Major James William Coldwell: That would be satisfactory to me. I think it is a matter of some public interest and urgency, but I am glad to agree to that suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That when this house adjourns on Wednesday, March 21, 1951, it stand adjourned until Monday, April 2, 1951.
He said: If it is the pleasure of the house that this motion be considered at this time,
I shall be glad to move it; otherwise I would not want to insist on doing so.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree that the motion should be put now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before the motion is adopted,
I should like to know whether the members will be paid for the month of March before thejT leave for their Easter holidays.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: I can assure the hon. member that full consideration will be given to the desirability of doing that, if the rules allow it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minisier of Resources and Development) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to increase the number of members of the Yukon territorial council from three to five.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Rooney (St. Paul's):: I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General or, in his absence, to the parliamentary assistant. Has the Postmaster General or the parliamentary assistant any comments to make regarding the grievances voiced by the letter carriers at a meeting held in Toronto yesterday?


Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Postmaster General):: The hon. member was kind enough to hand me a copy of his question shortly before I came into the house. Notice of a similar question was received from the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), and early last week the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) also inquired of me outside of this house about this reduction in the letter carriers' staff and made somewhat the same representations.
The meeting of letter carriers in Toronto has also been brought to my attention, in the absence of the Postmaster General from the city on official business, by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Conacher), the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Hellyer), the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Henry), and the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron)-


Mr. Fleming:: And the member for
Eglinton.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: -who, I understand, were present at that meeting and who expressed their desire to see the Postmaster General about it tomorrow when he returns to the city.
In the meantime, the department has no information concerning the proceedings at that meeting other than that published in the newspapers.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is sufficient.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: A clipping from he Globe and Mail dealing with this matter was handed to me before the lunch hour. Until we have an official report from our officials in Toronto, therefore, on the nature of the complaints and grievances aired there, it is not possible to make a complete statement about them; although this will be done, if deemed necessary, either by the Postmaster General or by myself as soon as possible.
However, I wish to draw to the attention of the house the fact that the department is in daily communication with postmasters throughout Canada in regard to the changeover to the one delivery on residential walks.
Much of what is reported to have been said at that meeting is not apparently borne out by the facts. The letter carriers and other postal workers have associations employing paid officers who have full access to postmasters and to headquarters officials, including the deputy postmaster general, at all times.
No man is being asked or expected to work more than forty-four hours a week. None of them can expect to work less. In every individual case where it is claimed, or where there is any indication, that the hours are in excess of this, the full facts are being obtained, and adjustments will be made promptly. The associations concerned have not as yet submitted anything to indicate that, other than the temporary dislocation due to the change-over, there are any grounds for continued grievance on the part of the men.
To repeat, every individual case will be checked and adjustments made on the basis of facts. May I be permitted to add that the Postmaster General informed me on Friday that on his return to Ottawa tomorrow he wished to make a full statement to the house on this reduction in letter carrier delivery now being applied throughout the country.


Mr. Graydon:: What about the double loads they carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the parliamentary assistant to the Postmaster General whether in the course of this inquiry, which I hope will be regarded as an urgent matter, action will be taken not only on the protests of the letter carriers, which are urgent, but also on the storm of protests from people who are getting their mail delivered about five or six o'clock in the afternoon?


Mr. Abboli:: What about economies?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Minister of Finance
made a remark, Mr. Speaker, that I think deserves comment. He said: "What about economies?" This is not simply a matter of
Inquiries of the Ministry economy. We all want to see economy. This is a question of humane treatment and seeing that fair play is done. It is not a question of economy; it is a question of lack of common sense.


Mr. Noseworihy:: May I ask the parliamentary assistant a supplementary question? He mentioned that the department has been in contact with postmasters. Has the department been in contact with the men, or with representatives of the men through their associations?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I presume that our circulars sent to all postmasters were duly brought to the attention of the postal employees concerned.



APPLICATION TO POSTMASTERS OF PUBLIC SERVICE PAY INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron North):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General, or in his absence perhaps his assistant can answer. Will the Postmaster General tell the house whether the postmasters who are not civil servants will receive the same proposed increase in salary benefits as those who are civil servants? If so, when may they expect to receive the same?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: May I take this question as notice?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	.
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: I have three questions to ask different ministers, Mr. Speaker. May I ask them consecutively?


Mr. Speaker:: I hope they are not questions that should be on the order paper.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The first is to the Minister of Justice. Has there been an attempted sabotage of industrial production at Oshawa, Ontario, by communists? Has there been a deliberate communist campaign to slow down production and upset the morale of industrial workers engaged in defence production at Oshawa?


Hon. Sfuari S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of these questions. Immediately upon receipt of them I got in touch with Commissioner Wood of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police during the lunch hour, and requested him to get in touch with the appropriate officers of the mounted police to secure the

Inquiries of the Ministry information which is required in reply to these questions. Up to the present time I have not received that information; therefore I would suggest that I bring it down tomorrow.



EMPLOYMENT OF NEWFOUNDLANDERS IN ONTARIO LUMBER CAMPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Francis Higgins: May I
direct my next question to the Minister of Labour or to his parliamentary assistant? Has the minister knowledge of the exploitation of men brought from Newfoundland to work with Ontario lumber companies?


Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in sending me notice of his question. In the time at my disposal I have made an inquiry and I am now in a position to give him the following information in answer to his question.
Arrangements were made by our national employment service to provide transportation at federal government expense between October 1 and December 31 last for 301 men from Newfoundland who volunteered to work in northern Ontario lumber camps. The following orders were placed with the employment service, and the following number of men were dispatched: Great Lakes Paper Company, Fort William, 42 men; Abitibi Power and Paper, Hurkett, 66 men; Brampton Paper Company, 25 men; Marathon Pulp and Paper Company, 44 men; Pineland Pulp and Paper Company, Sudbury, 25 men; Gillies Brothers, Braeside, 50 men; Spruce Falls, Kapuskasing, 49 men, total 301 men. All these companies, Mr. Speaker, are known and recognized as running first-class camps.
The six dissatisfied men mentioned by my hon. friend in his notice are the only men of the 301 who have expressed any dissatisfaction with the working conditions in the camps. Four of them have been placed* to their satisfaction with the Driftwood Timber Company at Hearst, and the remaining two have chosen to return to Newfoundland.
Finally, as to the complaint that no stamps were affixed in the insurance books of these gentlemen, I may say that they had been working for companies that complied with regulation 14 of the unemployment insurance contribution regulations under which these companies have chosen to pay the contributions by bulk payments at specified periods determined by the commission.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Francis Higgins: My final question is to the Minister of National Defence. Is it true that a commonwealth conference is to be held in London in May to discuss Middle East defence, increase in armament production, the guarding of supply lines and: the Pacific pact? Is it proposed to purchase British-made jet bombers?


Mr. Speaker:: These questions have to do with a conference which it is suggested may take place a month or two hence. I think the questions should be placed on the order paper.



ROSS McLEAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. Sinnoli (Springfield):: I have two questions, both of which I should like to deal with while I am on my feet. I should like to direct the first one to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with Ross McLean, former Canadian government film commissioner. My question is this. Does he know who was responsible for his appointment as head of the film visual information division of the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization in Paris?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is one which should be placed on the order paper.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question, a copy of which has been given to the Minister of Public Works. Owing to the inconvenience to -the farmer and business people on both sides of the Red river at Lockport anticipating a long period of obstruction due to the fact that the dominion government has intimated it will close the bridge to traffic on May 1 for repairs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: -will the Minister of Public Works delay this action for a period of at least three years?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is overdoing it. Last fall we did give a contract for the repair of the superstructure

roadway on the bridge at Lockport. The work was begun in the fall. It was discontinued during the winter months and will be resumed around May 1. I do not think we should interfere in the execution of the contract. If the hon. member is referring to the closing of the locks at St. Andrews, I may say that we shall be guided by the water level as time goes on.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I have a supplementary question. Last year, when the bridge was under repair-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I wish to ask a supplementary question.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Will steel be made available when the work is started?


Alphonse Fournier: I will refer that question to one of my colleagues, and when I get an answer I will let the hon. gentleman know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A question asked when the orders of the day are called must not be one which would provoke debate. Questions must be brief and urgent.



COST OF LIVING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the statement appearing in this morning's press to the effect that the cost of living index had risen nearly three points in January, does not the government consider the time has now arrived for the setting up of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not a question which should be asked on the orders of the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government is waiting for 200.



EMERGENCY POWERS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Third reading of Bill No. 24, an act to confer certain emergency powers upon the governor in council.-The Prime Minister.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate
Defence Production Act closed on Friday night the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), outlining the order of business, said:
On Monday we will continue this debate-
And that was the debate in connection with the setting up of the Department of Defence Production.
-with the hope that we may reach a decision.
Then he went on to outline other business. I would suggest that that course be followed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, if there is any objection to third reading of this bill being taken today, I would say there is no desire on the part of the government to insist. It can go over, and be announced tonight to be considered tomorrow.
Order stands.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for the second reading of Bill No. 77, respecting the department of defence production.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make one brief comment on Bill No. 77 before the motion for second reading is put. I think it is axiomatic that legislation should be as brief and direct as possible. Much would have been saved in the printing of the bill, time would have been saved in this house and the courts in the interpretation of it, it would have been much more direct in its terms and certainly would have had the same effect, if the government had simply introduced a bill of only three sections, worded somewhat to this effect:
1.	This act may be cited as the Defence Production Act.
2.	"Minister" means the Minister of Defence Production.
3.	The minister shall be and be deemed to be, to all intents and1 purposes whatsoever, omnipotent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, before proceeding with the discussion in committee, in view of the fact that there has already been an indication of willingness to make at least one amendment, may I ask the Prime Minister if as a result of the discussions which have already taken place he could indicate whether the government proposes to offer any amendments and, if so, what sections they will cover.

Defence Production Act


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, we are not proposing to introduce any amendments. On the detailed discussion of the sections if it appears that amendments would make them more effective or workable, they can be considered as they come up. The government's proposal is the bill as printed.


George Harris Hees: Some time ago I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he would answer a question regarding the plan of production with respect to specific items, namely planes, tanks, guns, vehicles and small arms. He was kind enough to say he would give an answer on the bill. We have now arrived at the committee stage, and I would now ask the minister if he would make that statement.


Mr. Howe:: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend perhaps does not remember it, but he answered that question on Friday evening himself in considerable detail, during the discussion of the bill. I do not think I need go over it. The bill does not deal with the production of planes, guns, tanks and so on. It deals with an act to set up a department of government.


George Harris Hees: I believe the items I mentioned are very important ones which will be handled by that department. If the minister did not intend to make a statement, then I would ask him now why he said when he spoke on the matter a week ago last Friday, that he would be glad to make a statement. I quoted his statement in Hansard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is not the exact time to do it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, this is the appropriate section under which to make any general observations concerning the measure now before us. I wish to speak to some aspects of the bill generally, and particularly in regard to some of those which have already been discussed and which I hoped might have been amended by the government as a result of that discussion.
One of the things I should like to emphasize in regard to this measure is a point I had hoped would appeal to the Prime Minister, particularly in view of the explanation he gave of the emergency powers bill. When that measure was before us he explained that while it contained many of the provisions appearing in the War Measures Act, it was not deemed advisable to create the impression in the minds of the Canadian people that we have yet reached the stage where we should regard ourselves as being in a state of war. I indicated my support of that view. I said on that occasion that I thought the more it


was possible to emphasize in the minds of the people of Canada that our efforts are directed toward peace, the better it would be in carrying out the work we have under way.
This bill, instead of following the idea put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) at that time, deals with the production of defence materials in a way that goes beyond the powers conferred upon the minister responsible for defence production at the height of the last war. Reference has been made already to a number of the provisions of this bill which go very far and which it will perhaps be more appropriate to discuss when we are dealing with the individual sections. I would point out, however, that this bill goes very much farther than the munitions and supply act. It confers upon the minister as the minister, and not limited to cases in which he has the approval of the governor in council, powers which extend to some of the most important aspects of the Canadian economy.
I would suggest, as others suggested when the bill was up for second reading, that at a time when we are seeking to preserve all the desirable features of democracy it is most desirable that we make sure that we preserve democracy within parliament itself where the final test of our whole democratic system is going to take place. After all, democracy is something which affects every one of the fourteen million people of Canada; democracy is something that is shared by every one of those fourteen million people, but in the end, so far as national activities are concerned, the ability of all those people to express themselves within the democracy is through the channels afforded here in the parliament of Canada. For that reason it has been urged by others as well as by myself that we should not, at a time like this, proceed to extend these extremely wide powers, particularly without any explanation being given as to why such vast powers are necessary at this time.
This is not a subject that is coming up for discussion today for the first time; it has been under consideration for many years by people who are concerned about the preservation of parliamentary democracy. As the members of this house well know, one of the most learned books on that subject was written by Lord Hewart of Bury in 1929 under the title of "The New Despotism." Lord Hewart referred to the great danger of losing real democracy by the extension of what we have come to describe as administrative law into those fields which can still be dealt with adequately by parliament itself.

Lord Hewart did accept the proposition that there are many cases in which administrative law is necessary so that there is from day to day that measure of flexibility which is necessary for strictly administrative acts. He emphasized, however, his own point of view, and the point of view of many great constitutional lawyers of Britain, that where so-called administrative law gives to the government or to an individual minister the power to make decisions which have the effect of law, actually you are denying the responsibility of parliament itself and the rights of parliament in dealing with matters of public concern. At page 35 he had this to say:
Between the rule of law and what Is called "administrative law" (happily there is no English name for it) there is the sharpest possible contrast. One is substantially the opposite of the other.
He then goes on to explain the difference between administrative law and the rule of law under our system of parliamentary government. In referring to the administrative law of France he had this to say:
It is a system which is fundamentally opposed to the English conception of the rule of law, especially as regards exemption from the jurisdiction of the ordinary legal tribunals, in the case of public officials acting in performance or purported performance of their official duties.
He then goes on to make an extended examination of the way in which the extension of legislative authority, without supervision by parliament at the time the decision is made, does in fact challenge the authority of parliament itself where it is something that affects the welfare of the people and creates new regulations, new laws, new activities not contemplated by parliament in any decision they have made.
The whole idea of the making and enforcement of law was dealt with long ago by one of the greatest exponents of our system of law, Sir William Blackstone, in these words:
Where the right of making and enforcing law is vested in the same man, or one of the same body of men, there can be no public liberty.
In this particular bill, not only is authority conferred upon the minister to do certain things which would have a profound effect upon our economy and the life of the whole country over very broad fields1-in fact over almost limitless fields-but we find it contains provisions which make it possible for the minister to delegate that authority to anyone whom he chooses, without any formal approval by the government by order in council. Then we have again the statement by Lord Hewart, to whom I have referred, to be found in the book from which I have already quoted, who says that powers of this kind continue to extend themselves to the 80709-571
Defence Production Act point where we no longer have real democracy, no matter what the form may be. I quote his exact words:
Arbitrary power is certain in the long run to become despotism and there is danger that if this so-called "administrative law" (by government agencies), which is essentially lawless, is gradually extended, it will mean the loss of those hardly won liberties which it has taken centuries to establish.
The proposition I put forward when this bill was up for second reading, the proposition I put forward now, is that when we are already engaged in a world-wide struggle to preserve our traditional system of democracy, that is the time we should most jealously guard those traditions and principles upon which that democracy has been built. Without going into many of the sections in detail I would point out that there are powers in this bill which at no time during the course of the war existed in statutory form in any measure brought forward by the government. We are still waiting for an explanation as to why this power should be given, particularly at the very time the Prime Minister, in discussing another bill, points out that it is desirable for us to refrain from extending powers to the full extent that would be done in time of a general war, because the very act of doing this might in itself convey the impression to the public mind that the government regards this country as already in a state of general war.
Fort that reason I am repeating to the Prime Minister-and I emphasize, to the Prime Minister-my suggestion that in consistency, having regard to what he said in relation to the other bill before the house, this legislation should not confer still wider powers than were conferred during the war, either upon the government or upon a minister; but rather at this stage the government should voluntarily redraft this bill so that the principle of the rule of law would be clearly settled, and the acts done under this legislation would be subject to those ordinary safeguards which are traditional under our system of democracy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: First I would like to deal with the matter of urgency. Several speakers have said there is no urgency about this rearming, that we should wait until we have a shooting war and then-


George Alexander Drew: May I ask what hon. member said that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my hon. friend intimated it just now.


George Alexander Drew: I most certainly did not at any time; the very opposite.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member said the
occasion had not come when we needed emergency legislation, as I understood him.
900	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act


George Alexander Drew: I must insist, Mr. Chairman, that the record be kept reasonably accurate, even with the minister who is now speaking.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nevertheless I should like to deal with the matter of urgency. We have undertaken a three year program to provide defence material for the armed services of Canada. This program involves the spending of $5 billion within the three years. In my opinion it imposes a heavier burden on Canadian industry in its present condition of full employment than was the case at any time during the previous war. In other words, I believe that if we are to keep the cost within reason it is necessary to have this emergency legislation. We are told repeatedly that this is the most extreme legislation this country ever saw; that in it we may delegate powers, and commit all sorts of crimes. My hon. friend has given us authorities from Britain and France. I should like to give an authority from Ontario, and I may say that the legislation I am going to read from was passed by the Ontario house in 1948 and was sponsored by the then premier of Ontario, the present leader of the Conservative party.


George Alexander Drew: You are going to read section 24, I presume.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We will read two or three
sections; they are all good. I will read section 71:
Notwithstanding anything in this act or in any general or special act or in any contract heretofore or hereafter entered into by the commission or by any municipal corporation for which the commission supplies electrical power, pursuant to section 84, where at any time the commission is of opinion that a state of emergency exists-
Talk about the rule of parliament!


Mr. Low:: What act is that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the Hydro Electric
Power Commission of Ontario bill.
-the commission is of opinion that a state of emergency exists by reason of damage to or destruction, failure or break down of any of its works, wastage of power, power demand in excess of its power resources or other matters restricting its ability to deliver power, and the commission so declares, the commission may, during the stage of emergency-
-do a great many things that I need not read. Among other things the Hydro can go on your private property and do anything they like, and the citizen has no recourse. He must simply take any settlement the commission wishes to give him. Access to the courts is completely denied. Then I read subsection 5 of that same section:
Nothing done under this section or under any direction, order, regulation, restriction, prohibition or control made or exercised by the commission under this section or done to enforce or give effect thereto by the commission-


Note these next words:
-its servants or agents, or by any municipal corporation or municipal commission or its servants or agents, shall be deemed a breach of contract by the commission or any municipal corporation or municipal commission or entitle any person to rescind any contract or release any guarantor from the performance of his obligation, or render the commission, its servants or agents, or any municipal corporation or municipal commission, its or their servants or agents liable in any action at law or other legal proceedings for damages or otherwise.
I suggest to my hon. friend that there is nothing in the bill before the house that denies anyone access to the courts. A flat is necessary in order to bring an action against the Ontario commission. Let me read section 6(5):
Without the consent of the attorney general no action of any kind whatsoever shall be brought against the commission, and without the consent of the attorney general no action of any kind whatsoever shall be brought against any member of the commission for anything done or omitted by him in the exercise of his office.
So far as I can learn, no fiat has ever been given by the attorney general to permit action to be brought against the Ontario commission since that amendment was passed. I hope no one will mention the word hypocrisy, because I believe it is unparliamentary; nevertheless I believe a good deal has been said about this bill that is not warranted by the text. If we take it up clause by clause I believe it will be found that the rights of the citizen are amply safeguarded, and that the ability of the government to get $5 billion worth of work done in three years and at reasonable cost is also safeguarded. It is for both these reasons that this legislation is being brought before parliament.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has done is to demonstrate how little he can draw a distinction between what is in the bill now before this house, and what he has just read. As a matter of fact, the last section he read was contained in legislation that was there during the period of government which he embraced with a great deal of approval on earlier occasions for many years, and in fact there is one of the members of that government sitting in this house on the other side at the moment. But the fact is that what the minister has read does relate to certain wide powers dealing with administrative authority over a specific and clearly defined activity. The members who have been following this discussion will recall that I pointed out that there are certain strictly defined administrative activities where certain measures may be necessary from the point of view of carrying out those activities.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend thinks that in that case they should be denied access to the courts of Canada. Is that the rule of law to which he refers?


George Alexander Drew: May I ask the minister where they are denied access to the courts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the paragraph which I read, the one next to the last.


George Alexander Drew: The Prime Minister will inform the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the provision for obtaining a flat from the attorney general is a customary procedure in all legislative bodies across this country. There are many of us who feel that that sometimes is a difficulty, and many of us have argued that there are ways in which the authority of the attorney general, both federal and provincial, which has to be obtained to initiate legal proceedings, might well be restrained. But the fact remains it is a customary procedure, whether right or wrong, which stands accepted. It is so in many cases in Britain, and it is to prevent what may be regarded as frivolous proceedings.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the section to which I was referring, and it refers to the state of emergency in section 71. The last few lines of paragraph 5 read:
. . . its or their servants or agents liable in any action-at-law or other legal proceedings for damages or otherwise


George Alexander Drew: Of course, what the minister has overlooked in this is that the section which he has been reading concerns a very specific relationship, and that is the relationship between the hydro electric power commission and the municipalities, individuals and other organizations to whom it supplies power.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And their customers and contractors.


George Alexander Drew: And their contractors; the section to which he has been referring provides, in a nutshell, that where there is a state of emergency-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Where the commission says
there is a state of emergency.


George Alexander Drew: -where there is a state of emergency, the commission may then carry out these things which are regarded as essential for the maintenance of power for that declared emergency, and that in carrying out that emergency there shall not be damages based on a recision of contract between the commission and the parties affected.
Actually, that is what should be before the house in this bill we are now discussing; that is exactly what I am suggesting. If the government is going to present a bill, and it
Defence Production Act says that in an emergency the ordinary rights shall in no way be protected, it should be clearly set out how that shall be done, and in what terms. Whether this is right or wrong, the fact remains that it puts in substantial detail exactly what the circumstances are under which the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario may be called upon to deal with those matters in the case of a declared emergency.


Mr. Pearson:: Who declares the emergency?


George Alexander Drew: There is no divine authority. If the minister of external affairs wishes to get into this, may I suggest that there is no divine authority which gives to the minister, who is going to administer an act which covers the whole of our economy, any greater authority to judge an emergency than the hydro electric power commission, which has as its responsibility the delivery of power to the people who buy power under contracts.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is certainly a delegation of power that this bill does not contemplate.


George Alexander Drew: That is so far from reality that it only indicates the dangers of entrusting powers of this kind to a minister who would make an assertion of that nature. When I heard the minister read this section as evidence of the fact there were other laws across this country that had abrogated the rights of the individual in the way this bill would, it simply demonstrates how incapable of understanding an ordinary legal document the minister may be, no matter how efficient he may be in any other respect. I do not know whether, in this particular case, he will get any advice from C. D. Howe and Company Limited-


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the cheapest remark that has ever been made in this House of Commons. C. D. Howe and Company Limited has been in existence for thirty-five years. I severed my connection with it in 1935. The trade was notified, and so were the customers, that I had no association with it. I do not seek advice from it, and I do not go into the company office. I suggest that my hon. friend has gone down in the estimation of this house by such a remark. I never thought too much of him before, but I shall think less of him from now on.


George Alexander Drew: I think that what the minister has just said does show the danger of entrusting power of this kind to him. A few minutes ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce used the word hypocrisy, and he meant that word to have some meaning. He was skirting around the rules. Now, may I say there is a word that I would suggest he look up in the dictionary, and that is nepotism, when he

Defence Production Act talks about this matter not being a subject for discussion in this house. I would suggest that he look up the meaning of the word nepotism. There are reasons why there should be a separation of all interest and not only purely personal interest in what is undertaken. That has something to do with the extent to which there should be given to any one man, without the restraint of government itself, full power over our economy in this way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Suppose the hon. member
explains what nepotism is.


George Alexander Drew: I am quite prepared to let the minister look it up in the dictionary. It is an ordinary English word.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member suggests that I am guilty of nepotism. He suggests there is nepotism; and just where does it come in?


George Alexander Drew: I think I am quite prepared to let Hansard stand. The minister can look up the word. I do not need to explain the meaning of every word I use.


The Chairman:: Order; I think the hon.
member should return to the principle of the bill.


George Alexander Drew: I do hope that the Prime Minister will retain the same attitude to this bill which he expressed so clearly with regard to the other bill that was before the house. If we are going to leave in the public mind the impression that we are still working for peace, or we hope to preserve it, we must certainly not adopt legislation which carries us to the full extent of all-out war. That was the proposition put before us in relation to the emergency powers bill, and that is the proposition I am putting forward now. Let us have a definition of the way these things will be carried out. Perhaps it is entirely possible that there may be a proper explanation for conferring wide powers beyond the ordinary requirements, and if that is so this house must have an explanation. If that is to be done, then let us do exactly what was done in the act which the minister has read, the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission Act, and set out in some measure of detail exactly what the procedure will be, exactly what the circumstances are under which those powers are to be exercised.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. leader of the opposition having appealed two or three times to the Prime Minister in connection with the terms of this bill, I think I should make a few observations. There is no contention being put before the house that the legislature of the province of Ontario was wrong in enacting the terms of the hydroelectric bill just cited. It is referred to just as an

illustration of the fact that there are occasions when this doctrine that Lord Hewart expounded so eloquently in the book from which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has cited just does not apply to the facts of the kind of life we live in this age and in this world in which we are living. One illustration of the necessity of having something else that will work in a different manner is to be found in the provisions put in this Ontario hydroelectric bill. I do not know that there could be found anyone anywhere, here or in the province of Ontario, to assert that there had happened any of the terrible things that could be conceived of under broad legislation of this kind. Usually, persons who are charged with the responsibility of administering an organization like the Ontario hydroelectric system are reasonable people who discharge their responsibility in a reasonable fashion; and although they might have extremely wide powers to deal with the situation in such a manner as would involve serious inconvenience to a large section of the public, they exercise the discretion that is conferred upon them in a manner that, so far, seems to have given satisfaction to the Ontario public. But it is one of those cases where it is necessary, in order to have a situation that can be handled with efficiency, to have extremely broad powers.
That statute provides that there will be no action without the authorization of the attorney general, without what we refer to as the fiat, something which has existed up to the present time in connection with the administration of federal affairs but which we announced in the speech from the throne we were going to do away with at this session. The government announced its intention of recommending doing away with that old and time-honoured doctrine that there should be no suit against the crown or its agent without a special fiat. I hope it is going to be done away with. It is to be found also in this Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission Act. Possibly after we shall have had some experience with the abolition of the fiat here, it will be abolished elsewhere. I think there are some provinces which have already abolished it and which have had no disagreeable experience as a result of doing so. It is possible that the legislators succeeding my hon. friend in the legislature of Ontario will come to the conclusion that it is not necessary to preserve a provision such as that; but it is there now. Then there is this other thing, that anything done by the commission or by its servants or agents or anything done by a municipality, its servants or agents or anything done by a local commission or its servants or agents, to take care of what

they themselves declare to be an emergency, will give rise to no action before the courts. One could conceive that it would be possible, under the terms of that kind of legislation, for a commission to make an improper declaration of emergency and to use that improper declaration of emergency for improper entry upon the lands or premises of the individual and then deny him any recourse to the courts for the damages resulting from the improper declaration of emergency and the improper entry upon his premises. But the legislature of Ontario did not feel that that was apt to happen, and the hon. member himself did not feel that that was apt to happen, with the kind of commissioners he was going to choose or who would be chosen by his successors; and I do not think it has happened. I am quite sure that after the experience that has been had in this country there are not many who feel that wide provisions in an act of this kind are going to be the occasion of abuse. You can conceive of the possibility of abuse being made of wide powers, but there are not apt to be abuses; and it is apt to be necessary to have the powers to do these things in proper cases, and to leave that to the good judgment, honesty of purpose, experience and knowledge of those who are charged with administering the act.
When we are dealing with some of the sections of this bill it may be that suggestions will be made that they should be toned down or that they should be sharpened up. But here we are dealing with the principle of there being a bill which provides that there may be, under present conditions, powers that are not normally exercised in peacetime. The leader of the opposition, in discussing it on second reading, complained of section 5. When we come to section 5, it will be discussed; but that is the section which provides that the minister may empower someone to do any specific act that he himself could do. The hon. member speaks of the rule of law. That is now the rule of law under the bill which was adopted at the last session of parliament. It was taken textually from the bill which was adopted by this house at the last session of parliament.


Mr. Green:: Which bill is that?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is the Essential Materials (Defence) Act. Section 5 is an almost verbatim reproduction of the clause in the Essential Materials (Defence) Act which is to be repealed if and when this act comes into force.
The other complaint was that the minister may remove any members, directors or officers of a corporation acting under him. Must he not have the responsibility to this
Defence Production Act house, not only for his personal acts but for the acts that will be performed by those corporations that he may cause to be incorporated to carry out some of the duties that would devolve upon him under this act? Must he not be the one responsible to this house? Is it not our experience that the one who has control of these corporations is the one we look upon as being responsible to this house for the proper administration of those corporations? If there was someone doing things for which he cannot take responsibility before this house, why should he not have the power of replacing him by someone for whose conduct he can assume responsibility before the house?
There are other sections, when we come to them, the language of which may be subject to some discussion; but for the present, the only question is this: Are we in times and in a world where there is occasion for the existence of powers which are not normally exercised in peacetime and about which there was this learned dissertation by Lord Hewart in the book to which the hon. member has referred? The hon. member is right in saying that section 71 of the Ontario hydro electric statute, which was referred to by the minister, is to apply to an emergency, but is to apply when the commission says there is an emergency; and that there were extraordinary powers which, when the commission said there was an emergency, could be exercised. That is something that does not fall under the general rule of law. The commissioners themselves are the ones empowered to make the definite finding that there is the emergency calling for the exercise of the powers, and that is something which it is found to be desirable to have in that kind of set-up. Well, are we not at the present time, when facing our great rearmament problem with our associates in the North Atlantic treaty, in a situation where we have to entrust more than ordinary powers to some public officials to discharge properly and promptly the obligations we have assumed to build up as rapidly as possible the joint strength of these North Atlantic treaty powers?
Once more, when each of these clauses has been reached its language will be looked at very carefully; but I cannot acquiesce in the invitation of the leader of the opposition to say to my colleagues: We will withdraw this bill and bring in some other kind of bill. We feel this is the kind of bill that the circumstances require.


George Alexander Drew: To follow this through, Mr. Chairman, and in the same spirit in which the Prime Minister has approached this bill, I recognize that there may be a great deal of difference of opinion as to how the

Defence Production Act emergency provision, or the emergency situation, is to be dealt with, and the extent to which legislation should go. I am going to make certain suggestions to the Prime Minister in the hope that they may perhaps be worthy of consideration now or at some future time.
I want to say this: To the extent that there may have been any heat displayed in the earlier remarks, I think it is unfair and unjust to impute improper motives to those who did express the opinion that this is very dangerous legislation. Whether that is right, or whether it is wrong, it is my conviction that it is; and I certainly do resent the statement of the minister which in an indirect way may imply that there was hypocrisy in the presentation of that. But I am going to leave that and come to the clear expression of opinion of the Prime Minister as to his views in regard to this legislation as it is now before us.
I would point out one thing that does affect my own opinion in regard to this, and that, for instance, is the very section 5 to which the Prime Minister has referred. Section 5 of this bill is not in the same wording as the similar provision in the Essential Materials (Defence) Act, the section that we will consider in detail. Section 5 reads as follows:
The minister may authorize any person, on his behalf and under his control and direction, to do any act or thing or to exercise any power that the minister may do or exercise under this act.
Whereas in the Essential Materials (Defence) Act, section 5, subsection (2) reads:
The minister may authorize persons to act under his control and direction on his behalf in the exercise of powers conferred on him by this act, or by regulation.
There is, as the Prime Minister will see, a very clear distinction between the two. One is to exercise powers conferred upon the minister under the direction of the minister, and the other is power to delegate authority; but we can discuss that when we come to that section.
I believe that we have before us an issue that goes beyond the actual wording of this bill, and one which we should consider, whether it be at this time or at some other time.
I think it was the consensus in this house, from what I can read of the discussions at the time, that it was desirable after the end of the last war that the extensive controls and very wide and sweeping controls which were set up during the war should be relaxed as fast as they conveniently could be, consistently with the general welfare of the people of Canada. Now, unexpectedly we
[Mr. Drew.)

find ourselves adopting measures that confer powers that are not only as wide as, but in many cases much wider than, those taken over by the government as the result of the decision of parliament during the time of war itself.
This is a subject which has been under consideration for a long time. I think hon. members should be considering how we are to retain parliamentary democracy and at the same time place in the hands of this government power to do not only these things that ordinarily can only be done as a result of decision by parliament, but also to do things which would not ordinarily be within the jurisdiction of the dominion government at all.
It has been made quite clear that as a result of the emergency which we have now entered it is necessary for the dominion government to have powers to do certain things that ordinarily would be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. The passing of a bill of this kind therefore not only withdraws from the members of parliament their discretion and their judgment in regard to extremely important steps that will be taken, but it may also withdraw from the provincial legislatures and the provincial governments control and authority over things that it was intended they should control when our basic written constitution was adopted in 1867.
If it is necessary to proceed with bills of this nature, and to enact laws which will give such sweeping powers, then I suggest the time has come for us to face the necessity of some new device by which there will be a continuing supervision over the activities of government and the activities of ministers under bills of this kind. How that is to be done I do not propose to suggest in detail at the moment, but I would suggest that perhaps we might learn something from what has been done in France for a great many years.


Mr. Croll:: Hold more frequent elections.


George Alexander Drew: No, this does not refer to that
aspect of their constitutional organization. I was just going to say that no matter what our admiration may be for the people of France-and it is very great-nevertheless we would not wish to find ourselves in a position similar to that in which they constantly find themselves as far as elections and forming governments are concerned.
For some considerable time, and quite a long time before the adoption of the present constitution, the French constitution of the day did establish the practice of administrative law, with dictates by governments very similar to those which we are now providing for in legislation of this kind. While I

think there are ways in which their constitution should be improved-and we would all hope that it will be improved for the greater stability of government in France in these critical days-nevertheless there are also some things which we can learn from them in regard to different aspects of their handling of their own affairs.
The step that they took to meet the situation arising from the conferring of administrative powers of this kind upon the government was to set up what they called the council of state. The council of state is a large appointed body with perhaps a hundred members, from time to time having different groups within that council set up to deal with different problems arising from this system of adminstrative law and related law.
That council of state, and particularly some of the bodies set up under it, have functions at times similar to those of the privy council. They have at times even wider powers, because they can review this administrative legislation and pass judgment upon whether it is in keeping with the general welfare of the people. I am not saying that we can or should adopt something exactly similar to the council of state of France, but I am pointing out that for many long years it has been recognized in France that when you take away from the elected representatives of the people the responsibilities over administrative legislation which will have a tremendous and profound effect upon the general activities and welfare of the people, there should be some mechanism which exercises some measure of supervision over that type of law which has been regarded as so dangerous by so great an expert as Lord Hewart of Bury, and by others with similar experience in the constitutional field. I suggest that, in consultation with the provinces, in the light of events which have emerged in the last few months, the desirability of setting up some body with special judicial authority, so that some of the dangers of administrative law of this type may be removed, would be highly desirable, and particularly at a time when we are seeking to preserve the full strength of our democratic system.
I am putting this forward now because it seems to me it is appropriate to offer the suggestion at a time when we have under consideration a bill which carries administrative law as far as this bill carries it. Whether the Prime Minister feels that this is the time to consider a suggestion of that kind or not, in any event I recognize that this would be something outside the scope of the bill itself. However, as we consider this subject, and as it appears clear that the government proposes to proceed with the bill, which contains these very wide powers, without defining 80709-58
Defence Production Act clearly the field in which those powers may be exercised, I would hope consideration would be given to the initiation of discussions which might lead to the setting up of some independent body, judicial or semi-judicial, which might act in a supervisory and advisory capacity, as well as having certain clearly defined and limited judicial responsibilities in regard to legislation of this kind.


David Arnold Croll: Would the hon. member permit a question? We have gone through this administrative law process once before within my recollection. The process now is watered down compared to what it was in the original emergency powers measure. Would the hon. member say in what respect either the individual or the provinces were permanently affected by the process we went through as a result of legislative acts?


George Alexander Drew: I would say that what happened was this:	Under the emergency powers
legislation so many powers were taken over by the dominion government that the provincial governments had no choice but to carry forward the agreements. They were clearly stated to be temporary agreements, as the hon. member will recall because, as I remember, he was a member of the government in Ontario at the time the original agreements were signed under which certain taxing powers of the provinces were handed over-and very freely handed over- as part of the general attempt to increase the authority of the dominion government in regard to certain aspects of the preparation for war.
But as will be recalled, those agreements did not prove to be temporary at all. They were renewed; and now apparently we are to see an extension of those agreements still further. My own opinion is that the extent to which agreements of that kind have gone, agreements under which fixed amounts of money were to be received in return for ordinary taxing powers the provinces were intended to have under the constitution, is the direct result of the exercise of that power during the period of war. I should think a committee such as I have mentioned, one having functions somewhat similar to those of the council of state in France, would be likely to examine situations of that kind, and make it easier to protect the relationship between dominion and provincial governments, where it is necessary for the dominion government to exercise powers which do encroach upon ordinary provincial jurisdiction.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Chairman, having spoken at some length in the debate on second reading, I certainly do not intend to take the time of the committee

Defence Production Act for more than, a few minutes now. However, there are one or two points I should like to make.
In the first place, so that there may be no misunderstanding as to my feelings, I should like to quote one sentence I used at the beginning of my speech the other night when I said:
In the first place, I should like to say what I think we all feel, namely, that defence production must not be delayed.
And then I said:
We must not allow private interests to stand in the way of defence measures.
I should like to make that perfectly clear, and it applies to anything I shall say. My only reason for taking the time of the committee is that the more I thought about it over the week end the more deeply concerned I became about the fact that, apparently, we are drifting into the giving of these powers. So far as I can see, we are doing it very lightly. I think there is nothing more undesirable than to give powers which in themselves are unwise merely because we think, or because it is thought, that they will be well used by the person who exercises them. When you get down to it, that seems to be the only argument made. Let me point out that we are giving these immense powers for an indefinite time. They are not being given in wartime when there is a natural end; they are being given when they may be continued indefinitely.
We are also being asked-and this is the thing I differ with so strongly-we are being asked to consider this on the basis that these powers are just as essential as they were in wartime. I shall not take the time of the committee to do more than reiterate that I believe the similarity between the minister's job now and the job in wartime is entirely superficial, and that the dissimilarity is far greater. I believe there is no real similarity at all.
The other evening I raised another question concerning the provisions of section 16, which appears to be the financial section in the bill. I do not wish to take myself too seriously, and I would not expect the minister to take me too seriously, but I have thought that one might have had some explanation as to why what I suggested could not be done. I did not offer the suggestion without having discussed it with some people- several people, in fact, who I believe have some knowledge of government; and they were not members of my own party, may I say. The suggestion I put forward, in a very tentative way, seemed to me to be good common sense. However, no notice has been taken of it at all. There may be when we reach the discussion of the sections, but none


has been up to this time. It seems to me the minister merely reiterates that he must have the bill, the whole bill and nothing but the bill.
The Prime Minister, I am glad to see, made a disarming speech a few moments ago in which he suggested that we may be able to deal with this on its merits. But my view is that I do not think we can deal with it on its merits if the whole background of the bill is that we must assume that these powers, with only very minor adjustments, are necessary. The powers, it seems to me, are almost unlimited; I can find no limitation in them. Certainly there is no substantial limit -and they go on for an indefinite period.
I shall not take more of the time of the committee. I do hope, having regard to what the Prime Minister said, that we may be able to look at this without, as I say, being faced with the proposition that the powers have to be given virtually in their entirety.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to obtain information as to the relationship between the powers under this bill and those given under the emergency powers bill, with respect to possible price controls.
When we were dealing with the emergency powers bill I believe it was the Minister of Justice who made it clear that that bill did include powers to impose price controls, if the government decided to take that action. The bill now before us, among other things, will repeal the Essential Materials (Defence) Act which was passed last fall. The Prime Minister drew our attention to that a moment ago.
The Minister of Justice, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and others will recall that when we were discussing the Essential Materials (Defence) Act last fall it came out that the provisions of that bill gave the minister in charge, namely the Minister of Trade and Commerce, power to establish controls with respect to essential materials; and essential materials were defined as those materials involved in the defence program. I tried to pin him down at the time to certain specified items1-I notice the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) is smiling; he remembers the occasion, I am sure-such as steel, and it was admitted that under the provisions of the Essential Materials (Defence) Act, if steel got into short supply because of defence purchases, the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be able to control the price of steel. I tried to go on to meat and suggested that if purchases of meat for the armed forces had the same effect, the same result might follow. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that that might be permitted by the act

but that so far as his intentions were concerned he simply wanted control under that act over those things which related to matters directly connected with the defence effort.
The Essential Materials (Defence) Act is being repealed by this bill. From what has been suggested and from looking over the bill itself I take it that the essential features of the Essential Materials (Defence) Act are being carried forward into this legislation. For example, under this bill it will be possible to declare certain materials essential for the purposes of defence, and that having been done it will be within the authority of the government or of the minister to appoint controllers and do anything that may be deemed necessary in order to conserve those materials, to facilitate their production and so on.
It seems to me that it adds up to this: There is granted by this bill to the minister of defence production the power to impose controls, including price controls, over certain items and certain materials in our economy. So, if what I have said is correct, what we have is two sets of permission. We have permission under the Emergency Powers Act for the government to bring in price controls of as wide a nature as it may choose to bring in. We have the power under this bill for the minister of defence production to establish controls with respect to defence materials.
I will be quite frank and state that my reason for directing attention to this is that we have heard various rumours as to who would be responsible for price controls if they are brought in. There has been a rumour that they would come under the Department of Finance as was the case during the last war. There has been another rumour that this time they will come under the department of defence production. It has been suggested in another rumour that if we do get controls they will start with defence materials. That seems to be consistent with the provisions of the Essential Materials (Defence) Act which are being carried forward into this bill.
I should like to know if the Prime Minister can tell us what the plan is if the government does respond to the demand for price controls. The Prime Minister knows the arguments that I have put forward repeatedly for price controls. I am not trying to ask him a leading question on that matter. Just at the moment I am trying to get this confusion straightened out. If we do get controls will they be administered under some other department such as the Department of Finance or will they come under the aegis of the minister of defence production?
80709-58J
Defence Production Act


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If control is needed of materials declared to be essential for war purposes, those controls might be exercised under this bill. But this bill would not allow the establishment of controls that would extend to commodities. For instance, there might be a control over steel, but this bill would not allow a control over the prices of automobiles or other articles manufactured from steel. If there is to be any system of controls of a substantial extent, controls over any wide field, that would have to be done by virtue of regulations or orders made under the Emergency Powers Act. This bill would allow limited regulations to be made affecting the allocation and distribution of materials.


Solon Earl Low: Basic materials.


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: Basic materials. But it would not permit the control and allocation of commodities. With the act that was passed last September we were proceeding on the theory that we did not have to rely upon an emergency that would displace jurisdiction, but that we could exercise certain controls over those materials that might be shortened in supply by the requirements of defence as something necessarily incidental to the proper organizing of defence. Now we are asking parliament to declare that there is the kind of emergency that authorizes the displacement of jurisdiction. If there was to be an interference with the free flow of our economy, that would come under the Emergency Powers Act; whilst if there were merely to be the control and allocation and distribution of materials declared by the governor in council to be essential for war purposes, that could be done by regulation under this defence production act.
There would not be any attempt under the act with respect to the department of defence production to establish any general system of controls over the sale and distribution of commodities in Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: That seems to me to be
rather confusing. From what the Prime Minister has said it would appear that the government contemplates setting up a dual system of controls. The Prime Minister has referred specifically to the Essential Materials (Defence) Act of 1950 and it seems to me that under that act price controls could be exercised over those things that enter into defence preparedness, but which would have an effect on the whole economy.
I was looking up some statistics today and I find that the price index of eight essential supplies used on western farms has increased from 128 in August, 1946, to 194 in February 1 of this year, an increase of 66 points. We are anxious that this tremendous increase,

Defence Production Act not only in the cost of living but in the cost of production which affects everybody engaged in production, should be brought under some control. My understanding of this bill was that when taken in conjunction with other bills we have passed there would be no question of the government having the right to exercise that control.
What I am afraid of is that there will be some dual system of controls which may result in ineffectiveness and a great deal of confusion, both to the persons who are using supplies and to the consumers and other purchasers who are using those supplies that might be put under some control by these pieces of legislation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: During the last war there were differences, as there necessarily had to be. Some things can be distributed by a system of rationing, by coupons. Other things have to be distributed by direct permits granted because of the special conditions in which the applicant for the permit may be placed. For instance, there was the control of building. It was not by a system of coupons that gave everyone the right to do a certain restricted amount of building. A special permit was authorized for a special building upon presentation of the facts and circumstances surrounding the application for that permit. I have no doubt that if we had an extensive system of control there would have to be the same distinction again. There are certain things for which each individual should have a coupon or permit which would entitle him to a limited quantity. Other things, however, are required only by a relatively small portion of the population, and there you cannot have a uniform system of coupons to everybody. You must have a special examination of the circumstances under which a permit is applied for. So I have no doubt that a dual system of that kind would have to be applied in any method of controlling the distribution of short supplies.


Major James William Coldwell: I think I grasp the Prime Minister's point, and 1 can understand the difficulties,


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that under present legislation the only costs the government has taken power to control are the costs of materials. We have declared steel an essential material, and the cost of steel has been controlled. It is under the powers contained in the bill that we are controlling the distribution of steel. Copper, zinc, lead and other strategic materials have also come under control. The bill provides that the materials to be covered are those in which a shortage is created by war purchasing.


Solon Earl Low: And the prices of those essential materials are frozen?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, such prices are not frozen, but they are carefully watched and kept in proportion to the cost of the ingredients that go into them, including labour. There has been no great change in these prices.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to direct one or two questions to the Prime Minister and the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. In the first place may I ask the minister whether as yet he has had any serious difficulty with producers or businessmen in Canada in connection with the production of defence materials?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I don't know. We have found some of them not as ready to assume an expansion program as we would like but please don't ask me to specify particular firms. We are getting on fairly well, but the situation is getting tighter all the time, and I believe we will need this legislation before we finish placing the orders for the $5 billion worth of supplies. My deputy reminds me that we have also had cases where the supplier has said: "I am booked full. I can only take this business if the government can give me protection against possible legal action if I have to cancel civilian contracts." Under this legislation the government where necessary has authority to declare cancellation of civilian contracts force majeure, in order to provide government defence supplies which otherwise might not be procurable.


Howard Charles Green: But has there been any difficulty that would require the taking over of a business, for example?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not yet, no.


Howard Charles Green: Nothing of that kind?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. There were such situations in the last war; we took over several businesses.


Howard Charles Green: Then may I ask the Prime Minister whether any further powers would be required to carry out defence production if w were actually in a third world war?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not anticipate there would be. I think the enabling sections here are expressed in language which probably would be broad enough to apply; but of course with respect to that, as with respect to all our other moves in this connection, we would expect to declare any change in policy to parliament, and we would have to be asking parliament to appropriate moneys, so there would be ample opportunity for parliament to concur or refuse to concur in the carrying out of any further policy that was declared.


Howard Charles Green: The Prime Minister has said that this bill as presented contains all the powers that would be required in the event of a third world war.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not want to
promise the house that if we ran up against something where the courts said this was not good enough we would not come back to parliament; if we thought it should be done, we would ask parliament to authorize it; but I think the law officers have drawn this in language that should be sufficient to cover all the enabling powers apt to be required.


Howard Charles Green: Then that makes it clear, Mr. Chairman, that in effect this is a war measure. Unlike the Emergency Powers Act which was given second reading the other day, this bill is a total-war measure.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. member will
permit me, I do not think he should say this is a total-war measure. This is a part of the measures being taken by this country and eleven other nations banded together to try to prevent war. In order to prevent war you have to put yourself in the position that aggression would not be apt to succeed, and in order to do that you have to do the same sort of things as if you were looking to an inevitable war.


Howard Charles Green: Of course some of us tried to
point out to the Prime Minister the other day that this is exactly what we should do with regard to manpower, but he did not agree. Actually when the emergency powers legislation was under discussion the Prime Minister was very firm in his stand that it was not as strong as the War Measures Act, and that it would not be proper for the government to use the War Measures Act because we were neither in a war nor in a state of apprehended war. Today, however, he admits that this defence production bill is a war measure.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Chairman; I will not permit the hon. member to distort my language. I do not admit that this is a war measure. I do assert that this is an endeavour, with eleven other North Atlantic treaty powers, to constitute such a strong organization that aggression will not be likely to occur. If aggression does not occur there will not be war, and the measures will not have operated as war measures. They will have operated for the purpose for which they are designed; that is, to do our best to prevent a war.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, no; the Prime Minister
cannot get away with that. What he said was that as far as he knows no further powers
Defence Production Act would be required if we were in a third world war, and is in that sense that I say this is a war bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not. That is the sense in which you are distorting the Prime Minister's words.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Trade and
Commerce had better compare notes with the Prime Minister, because apparently they do not agree.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is another gratuitous and absolutely wrong assertion to make in this house.


Howard Charles Green: I have the floor, and I ask the Prime Minister not to interrupt.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No matter who has the floor, he has no right to distort the words of others, nor to make that kind of assertion.


Howard Charles Green: The Prime Minister has nogreater rights in this house than the newest member.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: He has no greater rights, but no member of this house, Prime Minister or other, has the right to do what my learned, friend is suggesting.


Howard Charles Green: Have I got the floor?


The Deputy Chairman:: The member for Vancouver-Quadra has the floor.


Howard Charles Green: I wish you would tell the Prime Minister not to interrupt me again.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. An hon. member has the right to stand upon a question of privilege. The Prime Minister did not say he was rising on a question of privilege, but obviously that is what he was doing. The rule says that no one who has the floor can be interrupted without his consent. If a member feels that his remarks have been misconstrued, however, it is the practice for him to rise on a question of privilege. It is referred to in Beauchesne as a so-called question of privilege, I admit, but that is the practice.


Howard Charles Green: I do not mind the Prime Minister rising on all the questions of privilege he wishes, but he has just been popping up and interrupting. It is quite clear that the cabinet have put into this bill all the powers they believe would be required in the event of a war. Perhaps the Prime Minister will agree that is fairly put. That is all I have had in mind throughout. Now, such was not the case with regard to the Emergency Powers Act. We believe that if the government is following one policy with regard to the-Emergency Powers Act, it should follow a, similar policy in the Defence Production Act. Rather than take what I describe as full!

Defence Production Act wartime powers, it should bring in a bill similar in nature to the Emergency Powers Act, but of course dealing with a different subject.
On Friday last I suggested that the powers contained in the bill which are for wartime, as distinct from the powers needed at the moment, should either be deleted from the bill or should only be brought into force by proclamation. There should be a provision in the bill that those particular sections would only be brought into force by proclamation, and in the event of war. Take, for example, the power to seize a man's business. As the Prime Minister knows, there is a power in section 27 which enables the minister to step in and take over a man's business. A few minutes ago the minister admitted that he has had no trouble of that kind to date. I should like to know from the Prime Minister why a provision enabling the minister to take over a man's business, even though that man has no contract with the government, is necessary. That is typical of the type of power which we think is not needed at this time, and should not be placed on the statute books. Can the Prime Minister explain why it is necessary to have power of that kind?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As I understand it, section 27 is limited to cases where the minister is satisfied that a person who has entered into a defence contract has failed or is likely to fail to perform it. Although this is not actual war, this is an endeavour to procure for the armed forces what they would require to be strong in the event of war, and for the purpose of building up that strength as an aid in preventing aggression.
When we come to the sections, if the hon. member has special comments to make about the language in any of them, they will be listened to. I do not know what the decision upon them will be, but they will be listened to. It is not the desire to have anything that is not considered desirable for the purpose of creating as rapidly as possible a situation which, in the opinion of ourselves and our associates, will make aggression unlikely.


Howard Charles Green: I think the Prime Minister
will find that the government is much more likely to secure good results from the Canadian people as a whole if an endeavour is made to co-operate with them, rather than take such powers as these which, after all, are rather drastic. This is particularly true when there is a strong penalty section in the bill. If a man does not comply with the provisions of the bill, he can be fined or imprisoned. Surely, under present conditions, that should be enough.

With regard to the taking of a man's business, may I point out to the Prime Minister that section 27 contains the power to take over a business firm which has a contract with the government, but there is also power to take over a firm which has been directed by the minister to do work for the government, and where there is no contract at all. There is the power there to step in and take over that man's business, even though only a small part of it may be in use for the production of war materials. Now, powers of that type should not we believe be taken in the present legislation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps the hon. member will wish to direct his observations to such of these clauses as are, in his opinion, faulty in that way.


George Harris Hees: Twice during the debate on this bill I have directed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have asked him if he would be kind enough to tell the members of this house as much as he can about the plans for the production of five specific materials of war which will be dealt with under this bill. They are planes, tanks, guns, vehicles and small arms. A few minutes ago the minister said I had answered my own question on Friday night, implying I believe that the answers were in the speech delivered by the Minister of National Defence. I believe I proved, perhaps to the intense boredom of the house, that the answers to my questions were not contained in the speech by the Minister of National Defence, because that speech does not contain any specific information regarding the production of what I consider to be important materials of war.
I am asking this question in no way to put the minister on the spot, to embarrass him or to make political capital out of it. I am simply asking to learn what the plans of the government are so far, and if they have not gone far enough for the minister to give the information, I would be glad to know that. I am extremely interested in this question, and I believe the people of the country are vitally interested in it. A large amount of their $5 million will go to the production of these things. The minister was kind enough during the earlier stages of the debate to indicate that he would be glad to give the answers to these questions when the bill was before the house. It is my belief that the time to get an answer is when clause 1 is before the committee. If I am wrong, I should like to be told, and I earnestly ask the minister to comply with my request.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This bill does not refer to the construction of planes, tanks, small arms or

anything else. It provides certain broad powers applying to the whole range of defence contracts. I should like to give to my hon. friend a dissertation on what we are doing on aircraft, tanks and small arms; but to do so would require at least a forty-minute speech. I will probably give a summary when the estimates are before the house. But surely he does not want me to break off this debate, without preparation, and attempt to give all the details of all five products he has asked about; that would constitute a cross-section of a good deal of the defence work that we are doing at the present time. I wish to be reasonable, but that is not a reasonable request on this particular bill.


George Harris Hees: It is not that I am asking this question without any warning, Mr. Chairman. I asked this question exactly ten days ago and the minister then said, as reported at page 630 of Hansard of February 23: "I will be glad to make it on the bill." Ten days is quite some time. I can think of no better way of taking up the time of the committee than for the committee to hear the plans to produce these vitally important war materials. The minister has had ten days' warning. He said he would give a report at this time; and I do not think that I am making an unfair request when I ask him to follow through on the undertaking he gave at that time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As we go through the bill, if my hon, friend can find an appropriate paragraph which deals with the construction of tanks, planes or guns, we shall stop there and discuss them at that stage.


Mr. Fulton:: I think that the minister is not giving the committee or the country credit for the interest in the matter of defence production which the committee and the country in fact have. This section gives the title of the act. It is cited as the Defence Production Act. Surely planes, tanks, guns and vehicles are defence production. Surely what the minister intends to do under this bill is to let contracts; in fact, in some cases, to direct that certain firms produce these materials for defence. I can think of no better place for the minister to tell us the general plans of the department which is now to be set up for the production of defence materials than at this time when we are considering the general clause of this bill to set up a defence production department.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps the quickest way is to make this the children's hour and discuss these things. In the field of aircraft-to take the first item-we are now in production on the F-86-E aircraft which is the latest version of the F-86 plane. A good many hon. members visited the plant of Canadair where
Defence Production Act this operation is going on. We have arranged for government-furnished equipment at the rate of twenty planes per month; and it is expected that over the next few months that figure will be the production output of the plant. Everything there is I think under control. As soon as our own jet engines are in quantity production and as soon as the supply of g.f.p. can be had in greater volume, that production figure can be stepped up to fifty planes a month if required.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is g.f.p?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Government-furnished property. At Malton the CF-100 is coming into production. That is the plane called the Canuck. It is expected that production there will be stepped up to twenty planes a month. Offhand I cannot tell just what month the first plane will be off the assembly line. Of course the prototype has been built and has been tested. The Canuck is expected to be powered with the Orenda engine which has now been thoroughly flight-tested and which will be in quantity production by midsummer.
An agreement has been entered into to produce Harvard trainers. One thousand of them are to be produced for Canadian account and it is expected that a substantial order will be added to that number for United States account. The Harvard is powered with the Wasp engine. Preparations are being made to produce the Wasp engine in Canada so that everything to do with the Harvard aircraft will be a Canadian product. Recently a competition among plane manufacturers has resulted in the de Havilland company submitting the successful prototype and a substantial order for Beaver aircraft is being placed by the United States government with the de Havilland company.
Arrangements are being made for the production of aircraft accessories in this country. We are stepping up the production of magnesium castings and a great variety of products that go into the Orenda engine, into the CF-100 and also into the other aircraft that I have mentioned.
Is that sufficient information on aircraft for my hon. friend, or would he like me to expand on that? I want to be sure and satisfy him this time so that he will not ask this question again.


George Harris Hees: That is very good.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the matter of tanks we are doing nothing. In the last war we found that Canada was not in a position to produce tanks economically. It is too heavy a drain on our supplies of steel and other products, and we believe that our capacity can be more usefully employed by leaving the building of tanks to the enormous arsenals that were

Defence Production Act built in the United States for that purpose. We will procure our tanks from the United States.
The next item was guns, I think. The gun plant at Sorel, which did such important work during the last war, is engaged in producing a three-inch naval gun of the latest type. It is a large order, largely for the United States, but the Canadian requirements are part of the order. I do not remember the number of guns but it is a contract running into some $30 million. The same plant is also tooling up to build the 155-millimetre gun. It was tooling up for the 105-millimetre gun but that work has been held up, I believe, for possible type changes.
In the field of small arms, the arsenal at Long Branch is tooling up for the gun that is used in the F-86. It is an aircraft gun. I am not sure whether it is a 20-millimetre gun or a * 50-calibre gun. I do not keep all those details in mind. I am not sure just what the program is, but in any case the plant that made the bulk of the small arms in the last war is tooling up for the guns that the army' have ordered and will be in a position to go into production fairly soon.
As I said before, we have not put a rifle into production. The principal reason for that is that no standard rifle has been decided on. Nor has standard rifle ammunition been selected. We have large stocks of the rifle which was used in the last war, and we can readily obtain as many as we like of the Garand rifle, used by the United States. There is not the same urgency in small arms as there is about some other types of production; but as soon as the standard rifle is determined upon we will go into the production of that rifle.
What was my hon. friend's next question?


George Harris Hees: Vehicles.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are tooling up for two types of vehicles; one is the 4x4 and the other is the 6x6. We had intended to tool up for the jeep, but there has been some difficulty in getting manufacturing rights straightened out, with the result that no definite arrangements have been made for the jeep as yet.
My hon. friend will appreciate that failing the outbreak of war the number of vehicles required is not great. The important thing in this circumstance is the tooling rather than the production. It is quite easy to purchase all the vehicles that we need at the present time much more cheaply than by tooling up for them, but we are providing the capacity to produce these three types of vehicles which, it is expected, will pretty well cover the range as far as vehicles for the Canadian army are concerned.


George Harris Hees: Are these vehicles of the
American type?


Clarence Decatur Howe: American type.


George Harris Hees: All American type?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


George Harris Hees: One other question. Are we doing anything, for instance, with regard to bazookas or mortars? Are you going to buy them from the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Canadian arsenals are producing both-I do not remember the details. As I say, the Canadian arsenals are producing or preparing to produce anything required by the Canadian army for which they can get any substantial volume or are likely to have any substantial volume in the event of war. Arsenals are making a bazooka. Next, you will ask me if it is a big bazooka or a small one. I cannot tell you. I am speaking here without having made myself familiar with these matters in the last two or three days, but I think my hon. friend will find that the Canadian arsenals are working on the type of weapons they made in the last war. We have one type of arsenal for each type of weapon that was manufactured in the last war. They are all busy; and even in the field of explosives we are doing on a small scale what we did in the last war.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister permit one question? I understood him to say that they were tooling up for two types of vehicles, though, at the present time, his words were: "We can get out and get what we need more cheaply". Will the minister make that a little clearer? What changes will there be in the circumstances that we will not be able to get them later? Will it be because those who are now manufacturing them will be doing something else, and therefore we must tool up?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said before that the number of vehicles we require today is small. In other words, an army in training in Canada does not use many vehicles as compared with an army on the march or normally fighting abroad.
What we are creating now is the capacity to produce, which is important. If we had extensive operations abroad we would not be able to buy vehicles we want more cheaply somewhere else. The other sources of supply would be manufacturing at full capacity for the requirements of their own troops. We think it is important to have in this country the capacity to produce these three types of vehicles, and we are pressing to establish that capacity.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But we are tooling now to produce jeeps, although the manufacturing rights have not been straightened out?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, we are not tooling to produce jeeps. We are trying to straighten out the manufacturing rights, and when we do we will start to produce jeeps.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understood the minister to say we were now getting ready to produce three types.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; what I meant to convey was that military plans include production of three types. We are tooling for two types, and we are trying to clear the paths so that we can tool for the third.


Mr. Thatcher:: Would the minister clear up a question I asked a little earlier? On February 5 the Minister of National Defence made the definite statement that orders for $50 million worth of vehicles had actually been placed. Then on February 23 I had an order for return which stated that only $2,500,000 had been placed. I wonder how the difference is accounted for.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Minister of National
Defence said that an amount of $50 million had been allocated for vehicles. Was that not it?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: No; I have his statement here. He said: "During this period orders have been placed for the sum of $701 million."


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is, the army, navy and air force had placed orders with the Canadian Commercial Corporation.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: They had been placed with the company?


Clarence Decatur Howe: With the Canadian Commercial Corporation for $701 million. If the hon. member compares the statement that I gave for orders placed by my department he will find that it does not correspond with the Minister of National Defence's list of orders placed. The latter list means orders placed with the Canadian Commercial Corporation, or allocated.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I see.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the $50 million was the amount that was allocated in the defence estimates for vehicles.


Mr. Gillis:: After listening to the last half hour's discussion I feel that the kind of information that we are putting on the record is certainly not necessary or desirable at this time.
A few days ago someone asked the minister if he would name the seven points in Canada that might be vulnerable to an air attack,
Defence Production Act and he immediately said no, he did not think that it was good business to point out to the enemy exactly where he could hit us the hardest. This afternoon we have been drawing a blueprint for the record of exactly what we are going to manufacture and where we are going to manufacture it down to the last detail. I think myself it is bad security technique. However, that is not what I rose to say.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why did you say it?


Clarence Gillis: I thought that some of the
younger members, with less experience, were taking advantage of the fact that the minister is a bit irritable this afternoon, and provoked him into something that he would not do under ordinary circumstances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is quite normal.


Clarence Gillis: The responsibility is with the questioners rather than with the man who answered the questions. It was completely inconsistent with the attitude we took a few days ago not to blueprint the vulnerable spots.
What I rose to say was this. The emergency legislation now before the house is not confined completely to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce is getting at this time. In my opinion the whole thing has to be viewed in the light of both bills, namely, the bill the Prime Minister is putting through to take certain emergency powers in the matter of protecting the economy of Canada against inflation and exploitation, and the bill we are now discussing. Both go together. If there were not excessive exploitation you would not have very much inflation. The guy who drives prices sky high is the fellow who creates inflation.
Everybody is much concerned with the Prime Minister's bill. He himself says that it is stand-by legislation, and if and when the government thinks an emergency has come about we will apply it. But most people are afraid that we will not apply it.
We think that he should have applied that legislation long ago. We feel that it should be applied immediately. I refer particularly to price controls to stop runaway inflation.
On the other hand, the minister who has the most difficult job, namely, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is given the responsibility of organizing the whole economy of Canada in the event of an emergency. When that bill comes before the house the argument is immediately raised that its powers are too sweeping. We must restrict those powers, and so forth. My conception of it is that if a certain department of government is going to be given the serious
S14	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act responsibility of putting the country on a war footing in the event of an emergency, then we must also give that department the necessary authority to give effect to the program in the event of an emergency. You cannot restrict one and give the other; it has got to be a complete responsibility.
I am not concerned about what the minister will do with it. I do not think he will hurt very much the economy of the country from the standpoint of those who are going to produce, so far as the profit end of the matter is concerned. The only point that does concern me is that we ought not to permit the kind of business that crept in during the last war.
I believe the minister has to have the responsibility for which he asks, because he will be given the task of implementing a program he may have in mind or on paper. He will have to go out and let contracts as he did in 1939 and 1940. But, despite the gravity of the situation of those days, just after Dunkirk, no one in the country who could produce munitions and vehicles of war would produce them unless the profit limitation, then set at 5 per cent, was removed from war contracts.
It was removed, with the result that we established a very bad kind of contract. That was the cost-plus contract, which tended toward waste in all directions, because the more a manufacturer paid out for the completion of a contract the greater were his profits, and the greater was the incentive for waste and abuse. That certainly was true of most of the contracts let on that basis. Take a look at shipbuilding contracts, for example. Costs were terrific. I believe the minister's experience at the time of the last war should be helpful now.
Then there was the matter of accelerated depreciation. Many phrases and terms crept into business transactions during the last war. Depreciation certainly was accelerated. When the minister of finance of that day proceeded to defend accelerated depreciation, stating that he believed it quite justifiable to give the Aluminum Company of Canada $180 million of the taxpayers' money, and to write it off in three years as accelerated depreciation, and stated that he considered it good business -


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt the hon. member to say that the government gave no money whatever to the Aluminum Company, nor did it lend them money or deliver them money in any shape or form, except to pay so much a pound for the aluminum bought by this government. And the amount of aluminum we bought was trivial compared with the figure stated.


Clarence Gillis: I have heard this matter discussed a good many times, and have read the report of the committee on war expenditures. Th hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar made quite an issue of it and there were special sittings of the committee to deal with the matter. The minister may say that I am wrong technically, but I would ask this question: Did not the government pay the Aluminum Company an additional 2J cents a pound on every pound of aluminum produced?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The government of Canada during the war paid the cheapest price for aluminum obtainable anywhere in the world. We paid nothing extra to them-and neither did the Americans.


Clarence Gillis: Well, it has taken the minister and the government at least eight years to catch up with this argument. I have heard it advanced many times, and it is on the record in a good many places, that $180 million of the taxpayers' money was written off in three years by way of accelerated depreciation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Clarence Gillis: For the Canadian Aluminum Company.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is entirely mistaken.


Clarence Gillis: I have to accept the minister's word; but I still think that that type of depreciation was allowed many companies across the country, and that it is wrong in principle.
However, the point I am seeking to make is that there were thousands of Canadians who were never in a position to build homes under the national housing scheme. I suggested before, and I repeat my suggestion now, that if I made application under the National Housing Act to build a home which would cost about $10,000-and that is about the term they use-and if I agreed as to the type of house I wanted, in view of what has occurred in other respects I should be permitted to ask for accelerated depreciation, so that I might be allowed in three years to depreciate the total value of the house. In those circumstances I would own the house at the expiration of three years. I made that suggestion before and I was told that it was not good business.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If you owned a house in which you did not live you could write depreciation on it; but I do not think it would help you very much to write accelerated depreciation.


Clarence Gillis: I am just carrying out the
principle of accelerated depreciation as it was applied to plants all across this country all

during this last war. My suggestion would just carry it a little further: If it is good business in the creation of a plant, then it certainly should be good business in providing homes for our citizens, and particularly those who fought the war for about a couple of dollars a day.
I am not against the power being given the minister in the bill; but when the money of the taxpayers, through accelerated depreciation, has been handed over to companies across the country, either for purposes of expansion or for the building of new plants, the same principle should be carried into the building of homes. In view of his experience during the last war the minister should place some limits on war profits, if and when he puts this legislation to work.	.
I would ask the minister to tell me at this time whether he thinks the government's program is a good one, and whether the expansion of the steel industry is one of the problems to be considered. A few days ago several newspapers, including the Ottawa Citizen and the Ottawa Journal, carried the report of a speech made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the United States, upon which occasion he commented upon the development of the St. Lawrence waterways project. He said-unless he was misquoted- that unless that program is carried through, it would be necessary to shift some of the central steel plants down to the Atlantic seaboard.
Does the minister consider that that would be bad business? Would it be bad to have decentralization of industry in Canada, particularly in connection with the basic steel industry? When he spoke this afternoon the Prime Minister pointed out with some force that most of the program for defence at this time was to be in connection with equipment and arms, and the helping of our allies under the North Atlantic treaty. That presupposes that most of this equipment and production for defence purposes, amounting to $5 billion, will be going to Europe rather than to the Far East.
I ask the minister to realize that the logical place for expansion in steel manufacture to produce materials to be sent to Europe is on the Atlantic seaboard. This would provide the shortest route and save the hauling of basic materials across the country and the hauling back of the finished products. I think it is right that this money should be spent for the purpose of helping our allies under the North Atlantic pact, but serious consideration should be given to producing a lot of that equipment on the Atlantic seaboard.
I have another question to ask because I consider the minister to be perhaps one of
Defence Production Act the best structural engineers in Canada, an engineer with long experience. He will remember that I have discussed on many occasions with the Minister of Transport over the years the completion of the Canso bridge. A total of $250,000 has been spent by the federal government in determining the feasibility of this project. Newfoundland is considered to be one of our outposts in the matter of defence and the possibility is that it will become a fortress in the years that lie ahead. That means that a lot of material will have to be shipped in that direction from central Canada unless there is greater decentralization of industry. Can the minister inform the house as an engineer if that Canso project could not be considered as part of our defence program?


Clarence Decatur Howe: With regard to my remark in the United States that without the St. Lawrence waterway the steel industry would gradually be forced to move from the great lakes to the Atlantic seaboard, of course that applied to the steel industry as a whole. The steel industry of the United States is concentrated largely around the great lakes. The source of ore is mainly the state of Minnesota and moves by transportation over the great lakes. Canada is more fortunate than the United States in that 25 per cent of our production of basic steel is now on the Atlantic seaboard. I am all in favour of expanding in that area, as we hope to expand on the great lakes. There is no difference of opinion between us that the industry should be expanding at Sydney. I think there is room for expansion at Sydney as well as in other parts of Canada.
I do not think the hon. member seriously wants me to enter into a discussion of the Canso bridge. In the first place, I do not know much about it and I believe there is some difference of opinion among those concerned with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought that was built in June, 1949?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, and it has not been built since. Any access is a good access in time of war, I can assure you.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member for Cape Breton South referred to accelerated depreciation and gave as an example the Aluminum Company of Canada. I have not the actual figures before me, but my memory is fairly good. As I remember, we allowed 60 per cent of the cost of the Shipshaw power project as accelerated depreciation, I think over four years. Then after a normal price had been set, plus all other factors that entered into it, profit, usual depreciation and so on, we allowed them to charge two and a half
916	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act cents per pound in addition (or a large quantity of aluminum sold to the United States, I believe running to over a billion pounds, and also for aluminum sold +o the United Kingdom and I believe to Australia.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member is quite mistaken.


Major James William Coldwell: It was two and a half cents per pound in addition to the normal price of 15 cents. I am sure I am right in that respect because I went into it very carefully.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government of the United States made a contract with the Aluminum Company at 17J cents a pound for a certain quantity. I remember the price. I happen to know that before that quantity had been shipped, greater production allowed the Aluminum Company to lower the cost, which they did voluntarily, to 15 cents per pound.
I believe that that is the lowest price at which aluminum was ever sold in the United States.
I think the price today is either 18 or 19 cents per pound.


Major James William Coldwell: The point I am making is that that was the agreement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the hon. member will agree with me that the government of Canada never paid the Aluminum Company five cents for any structure or for anything except aluminum delivered to the government, and we bought very little. I might say that we got the lowest price on aluminum of anyone in the world.


Major James William Coldwell: I will agree with that, but by means of income tax allowances and accelerated depreciation at a time when the income tax was very high, in reality what we did was to pay for 60 per cent of the Ship-shaw development and a total of some $177 million in the way of expansion in the area. It is quite true that Canada did not put up a single dollar, but by means of various concessions the Aluminum Company was able to get 60 per cent of the Shipshaw development and the cost of other expansions.
This afternoon the minister said that perhaps they wished they had not done that at the time because of the income which has been obtained subsequently and upon which they have had to pay taxes. Let me point out to the minister that taxes came down relatively after the war. Another interesting thing is that the same suggestions for accelerated depreciation are being made today and I imagine that when the budget comes down there will be stiffer taxation than we have had in the past.
That is the point I am making and I think it is the point the hon. member was making 

a few minutes ago, although speaking from memory his figures may not have been quite right. I am sure that mine are. I quite agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce that they did lower the price, but when you look at the cost of production in Canada and consider the large quantities they were producing you can understand why they were able to lower the price including the extra 24 cents from 174 to 15 cents per pound.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wish my hon. friend would explain to me some time who lost money as a result of that transaction. I can assure him that it was not the government of Canada, which is now reaping taxes at the rate of some $20 million a year from that same development.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps these
specific matters could be referred to when we reach the appropriate sections. The discussion which has taken place during the last hour has covered a wide field and I am sure there are many hon. members who would like to address specific questions to the minister. I suggest that they wait until the appropriate clause is under discussion.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock the minister and some of the members on this side including myself were having a disagreement or an argument on the matter of accelerated depreciation. I did not raise the question for the purpose of holding a post mortem; I merely wanted to draw to the attention of the minister this whole question of accelerated depreciation as it applied in the last war, because I think it has very dangerous implications.
When I made a statement in reference to the Arvida and Shipshaw depreciation arrangements the minister said my figures were not correct, and I find they were not. Mine was an understatement. Of course I am conservative-minded anyway; I always want to be a bit under in order not to be caught off balance when using figures. I have the figures here; at the time I was speaking I was going by my memory. I have in my hand order in council P.C. 11745, which pretty well sets out the amounts Arvida and Shipshaw were permitted to deduct under the accelerated depreciation arrangements. I have in my other hand a copy of an agreement arising out of this order in council, between the crown and the Arvida and Shipshaw people,

which permitted! that particular operation to deduct other special depreciation allowances between 1941 and 1945. I am going to summarize the amounts paid under that order in council; they are as follows. First, regarding the expansion of aluminum production facilities at Arvida, at a cost of $117 million; depreciation allowance, June 1,	1941, to
December 31, 1945, 100 per cent as provided in P.C. 11745. That total depreciation took place in four years.
Second: contingent item of five per cent of above cost also subject to depreciation during the same period, as provided in P.C. 11745, $5,850,000.
Third: Shipshaw power development at a cost of $62,500,000; depreciation allowance, June 1, 1941, to December 31, 1945, 60 per cent as provided in P.C. 11745, $37,500,000.
Fourth: contingent item of 10 per cent of above cost also subject to 60 per cent depreciation during the same period, as provided in P.C. 11745, $3,750,000.
Regarding the expansion of aluminum producing facilities at Kingston, three items totalling $8,828,000, subject to 100 per cent special depreciation as reported by the minister at page 1487 of Hansard for March 23, 1943, $8,828,000.
Fifth: Regarding eighteen applications for special depreciation made during 1941 and 1942 totalling $4,431,956.06, subject to 100 per cent special depreciation, nine cases of 100 per cent in two years and nine cases of 100 per cent in one year, as reported in House of Commons sessional paper No. 274 of April 2, 1943, $4,431,956.06. This makes a total special depreciation allowance between 1941 and 1945 of $117,559,956.06. I might add that the total capital expenditure up to that time was $204,859,956.06. Of this total the special depreciation was more than 86 per cent, and the balance will be depreciated after 1945.
The point the minister makes is that the treasury as such did not give this money to the Aluminum Company. That is correct, but corporation taxes were waived by the government, and the taxpayers of Canada paid for the plant and equipment during that period. In my opinion if the treasury had been big-hearted and paid the bill it would not have hurt as much as the relief from taxation of corporations of that kind which were making a lot of money while at the same time we were penalizing the little fellow who just had enough to live on, making him pay his taxes while these companies amassed fortunes at the expense of the taxpayer. If the minister is looking for somebody to start a nice big plant somewhere with that kind of arrangement, I do not think it would be difficult for me and the hon. member for Winnipeg North
Defence Production Act Centre, for example, to raise the necessary capital, if the taxpayers will pay for it and let us finish up with a nice, lucrative business at the end of four or five years, with the price of the commodity we are producing sky-high. Of course the price is deliberately skyrocketed in order to write off the plant and equipment as quickly as possible, on the assumption that after the depreciation is written off the price will go down. But the price never goes down. Costs are always up, and prices stay up. As the hon. member for Melfort pointed out a few days ago, that is one of the most inflationary arrangements you could have in this country, because as that capital is depreciated it immediately becomes available for reinvestment; back goes that money into the stream of purchasing power, and away go prices.
I have in my hand sessional paper No. 274, which was a return to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre dated April 2, 1943. Now, in this sessional paper you will find order in council P.C. 421 referred to, which makes special arrangements for other aluminum producing companies in Quebec and Ontario. There are eleven in this agreement, and I am not going to put them all on the record, but I will mention this. It is the Aluminum Company of Canada Limited, Montreal and Quebec, Toronto works, a capital investment made to December 31, 1940, of $759,564.91, and it says that the above capital expenditures are to be written off in full in the year ending December 31, 1940; that is just one year. Those are just small items, and I do not want to clutter up the record by quoting from all the eleven. When you consider the depreciation allowance made to the Aluminum Company of $177,359,956.06, as set out in the figures I summarized for Arvida and the Shipshaw development, the minister I think will have to admit that the $180 million I mentioned is a conservative figure. It is really in excess of $180 million. I just wanted to clear up that point for the record, because I know the minister always tries to be, and generally is, quite accurate in his estimates to the house.
The other point I raised with him concerned his opinion as an engineer as to whether that Canso development, which the federal government has already decided upon, might not be considered as part of the defence program. I do not want him to enter into the controversy between the Department of Transport and the provincial government in Nova Scotia. At the appropriate time I intend to discuss that with the Minister of Transport for the purpose of clearing that up. Can that project be considered as part of the defence program?

Defence Production Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I should discuss the depreciation claimed by the Aluminum Company a bit more. I have never quarrelled with my hon. friend's figure of $180 million. I thought at once that it was probably more than that, as he says. I do quarrel with his statement that the money came out of the treasury of the government of Canada; that is not true by any stretch of the imagination. This is the position. The Aluminum Company of Canada had expanded immediately before the war. That pre-war expansion involved no question of accelerated depreciation. They believed they had capacity at that time to look after post-war requirements. Because of the undeveloped power they had available they were asked by the United States government to undertake an expansion which would mean multiplying their production by four or five. The United States government undertook to make that po uble by contracting for a very large amount of aluminum, and by paying for part of it in advance of production.
Now, without accelerated depreciation, what would have happened? The money was paid for aluminum, and not as capital. In that form it would have been drained off by the Canadian government. In other words, my hon. friend is quite right in saying that between the normal factors and excess profits tax that, instead of going into sticks and stones to manufacture aluminum, a large part of that money would have gone into the treasury of Canada. But the joker there is that if we had insisted on taking the money into the treasury of Canada that money would never have come to Canada because the contract would never have been made. You would never have had the power development and the aluminum plant building, because it could not have been financed without profits on that U.S. contract. The question I am asking my hon. friend to consider is this. From the viewpoint of the government of Canada, was it better to grant that accelerated depreciation and have that huge development, or would it have been better to refuse the accelerated depreciation and have nothing done whatever? That is the question, and that is the fact of the matter. There would have been no expansion.
Had the Aluminum Company foreseen the expansion in the use of the metal that has occurred in post-war years-I do not think anyone could have foreseen it-they would have desired, I imagine, to take a less accelerated depreciation. A property can only be depreciated once, and after it is fully depreciated all the earnings are then divided between the shareholders and the taxing authority. It is not regarded as good financing to take a write-off except over a long period, because depreciation then continues


to provide working capital for expansion over the longer period. My hon. friend said that they did use the wartime expansion in postwar years. They used some of it. They have never used the plant at Beauharnois since the war ended, and it represented a good many million dollars. Surely, he would say they were warranted in writing that plant off. It has been useless since then. There was a plant

I forget the location of the other plant, but it was away from Arvida- and it has never been used since the war ended. It so happens that they were able to use part of the installation at Arvida, and as the years have been passing they have been using more of it. There again I think my hon. friend will say it was a good thing for Canada that we were able to provide that accelerated depreciation to permit the plants to be built and paid for. Today we have a healthy industry that has made a tremendous contribution to the development of the Saguenay valley.
The member has made a business proposal, and I hope I shall hear more of it. He and the member for Winnipeg North Centre are going to build and pay for a plant in Winnipeg, and I am to give them special depreciation to write it off over a period. The hon. member will recall that you cannot take special depreciation except for cash paid on the line. We do not give special depreciation if the plant is built with borrowed money, or credit or anything of that sort; it must be cash actually invested in the business. If he will keep that in mind, I am sure we can get together on the proposal he has made.
As for the second question, I cannot give an opinion on the Canso situation. I have not been associated with that project. I do not even know whether the engineers have made their last report, or what the situation is. I am sure the Minister of Transport is just as anxious to get that project completed as my friend is anxious to have it completed.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, is my hon.
friend finished?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not intend to speak on
accelerated depreciation. In my humble view it was the premature sale of war assets. I hope in the future there will be more consideration paid to the value of everything that will be purchased or disposed of under this act.
I should like, sir, to say a word about the genealogy of this legislation. Until 1938 or 1939, the minister of national defence was the one who purchased the military supplies for his department. Then, in 1938 or 1939,

the grandfather of this act was to the effect of setting up the national defence purchasing board under the minister of finance. For the first time in our parliamentary history, the minister of finance was responsible, through that board, for the purchase of supplies for the Department of National Defence. I wonder if it was a trip given to the then minister of national defence? But his authority was emasculated and he had no power to buy a soldier's cap or uniform or anything like that. He had to send requisitions to the board for the supplies of his department. The board did not start its work at the outset because the government of the day was looking for an expert purchaser. None was found. After months of search, one of the vice-presidents of the Canadian National Railways was discovered as the one man who could head that board. During the last war we had the Department of Munitions and Supply, and I pay a tribute to the minister for the excellent work he did to stimulate Canadian businessmen to produce for the various departments he was supplying.
There is one thing I want to tell the minister, and I am sorry to have to repeat it; it is about the application of this bill. The minister is a member of the government whom I support; he has my confidence. Otherwise I would declare myself against his legislation. I am ready to give him a free hand to the limit. But what is the limit? Everything under this act is done under his own supervision, as much as it can physically be done, and under his control. Now we come to the control of expenditures. I am not in a position to discuss all the ramifications of the aluminum trust; it is not my intention to do so. But we have before us a piece of legislation that will give tremendous powers to a member of the government, and at the same time he will be given the exercise of that power probably in virtue of the emergency legislation. These two acts will be Siamese twins. The government will have to do that precisely for the purpose of putting in force the legislation that we have before us. It is something tremendous. If that legislation is submitted to us now, it is for the reason that in any case of emergency, when parliament is not sitting, the government will have to take advantage of both acts to do certain things that will be required in the public interest. That is clear and evident. It is precisely for that reason that the Prime Minister has said that, as soon as we meet together, he will table the orders in council if they are passed during the recess or during the adjournment.
This is a new department. The minor civil servants will be appointed by the civil service
Defence Production Act commission; but the big fellows will be technicians, and they will be appointed by order in council. I remember quite distinctly that when the Defence Purchases Act was passed twelve or thirteen years ago, a member of the opposition asked the government how the appointments would be made. The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), who was then a member of the government, said with great candour that assuredly they would all be made by the civil service commission. Everybody laughed and the matter ended there. But few people except minor civil servants were appointed by the civil service commission. I have no objection to the appointment by the minister himself of everybody in the department, upon one condition, namely, that we can know, upon request, the salary of each member of a crown company.
I refer not only to high officials; I refer to high officials, major officials, and minor officials. I include everybody. Why? Because it is the duty of members of parliament to give that information to any of their constituents who request it.
During the war and after the war I waged a fight for the reform of public accounts precisely in order to protect the government against abuse. I want to be proud of the government that I support. If I tell them that, it is not at all because I am opposed to them. It is because I am a supporter of the government. I consider myself to be a good Liberal, although I am not always called orthodox. But it is the doctrine that I have known, as enunciated by those who have been the stalwarts of the party up until the present Prime Minister took charge as its leader.
Let me give an example of what I mean. For instance, in one of those crown companies, if a gentleman is appointed by order in council, he considers himself to be superior to those who have been appointed by the civil service commission. He is a gentleman by virtue of his own rank, by order in council. He may owe something to the government but he owes nothing to parliament, and he has a supreme contempt for members of parliament because their indemnity is less than the salaries that are paid to these gentlemen. Our travelling expenses are also less. Therefore it is thought we must be less competent than those gentlemen.
I am serious when I say that. I do not want to hinder the success of the operation of this legislation; but in my humble view, what will best serve the minister is respect for our parliamentary institution on the part of all those who now belong to the crown companies or who will be appointed hereafter in this large department. Members of parliament-I can say this of all members of

Defence Production Act parliament, but especially of the supporters of the government-are the shock-absorbers of the government.
If the members of the opposition do not have to defend government policy, they must be in a position to explain it to any one of their constituents. What I am saying now is British parliamentary doctrine that I have read in big books, the names of which I have forgotten. But I remember the main idea of those who have written these textbooks, which are based on the soundest rulings of the British Speakers. Therefore, sir, there should be no different classes of public servants. We should all serve the people. We may support the government; we cannot serve the government. The gentlemen who belong to the crown companies are not servants of the government. They are, as we are ourselves, servants of the great country that is Canada. It must be said of each one of them, and it must be said of the big and the small ones.
My conclusion is clear. The minister does not agree with it. In my heart I am convinced that he is wrong about it. My warning is not unfriendly to all those big gentlemen who come here and consider that the position of controllers, and so forth, constitute a kind of nobility. I know a gentleman who is a personal friend of the minister, as he is a friend of mine. He was controller of light. His duty consisted in deciding what we had to do about daylight saving. Well, any child could have been light controller and could have said that in the summer we must have more hours of sunlight than in the winter. But he was a controller, and it was something much more than O.B.E., C.B.E. and M.B.E.; it was something real.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Was the hon. member able to find out his salary?


Jean-François Pouliot: No; I think it was one dollar.


Mr. Fraser:: How much were his expenses?


Jean-François Pouliot: What I say tonight is not very pleasant for me to say, but if I say it it is because I believe it. My record is in Hansard about the necessity of inspiring and of teaching to all the fundamental principle of the government of our country. Wherever I have the honour to speak outside the house I never fail to tell the people that I consider myself their servant. Why should anyone think differently? What is right does not need to be concealed. What is right can be exposed and defended in public meetings anywhere, and no one should be afraid to do so.
Now, sir, there is another point that I wish to make before I take my seat. It is this one.


There are many false interpretations of the duties held by some people in major positions outside the civil service. It is that they would be humiliated to have their remuneration, their salary, their living and travelling expenses, appear in the public accounts. Why? When they receive a cheque they cash it at the bank. It passes through many hands, and I wonder why there is not such a check upon the duties of all those gentlemen. I shall try to mention this just as objectively as possible, just as one writes a thesis to get a degree.
Very often members of parliament receive no reply from those crown companies unless they write to the minister. Why is it that it is impossible to get some information from those concerns about matters of great importance to our constituents? I will quote no particular incident, but I wish to congratulate the minister on having appointed to the Canadian Commercial Corporation a gentleman from Quebec city who answers the letters that we send to him. It is an immense improvement.
I will say nothing about the gentleman who is the head of Canadian Arsenals Limited, Brigadier Theriault of Quebec, who is a most helpful and well qualified man. He answers letters, too. There are many others who have a strong contempt for members of parliament. They say it is mixing into politics when they answer letters sent to them by a member of parliament.
I want the minister to be just as free as possible in his important duties. I do not want him to be handicapped by undue correspondence from me or from any one of my colleagues, but when I write to anyone in any of these crown companies as a member of parliament I am entitled to an answer and to the right answer. If these gentlemen consider that it is outside their duties tc answer my letter as it should be, the thing they have to do is to tell me to get in touch with the minister, and then I will have a good excuse to write to him, the excuse that one of his officials has suggested to me tc write to him.
What I have said does not apply to the deputy minister of trade and commerce for the very good reason that his salary and his expenses appear in the public accounts just the same as the salary and travelling expenses of some other officials appear there; but I repeat, the best protection of the government against any abuse-I do not mention embezzlement or misuse of funds; I speak of abuse of authority-is the respect of our parliamentary institution and of the members of parliament by all those who are in the pay

of the dominion government, whether it is one dollar a year or $35,000 a year, plus expenses.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask the hon. member
why he objects to the route of obtaining information through the minister's office? That is a carefully prepared route. We try to see that the information given out is accurate, and we try to see that it is given promptly. I would be sorry to dispose of that route for obtaining information, because I think it is pretty good.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell the minister that I am thankful for his answer. I have no objection at all to writing to him. But what I am telling him again is that it is physically impossible for him to answer all requests from members of parliament. It is because I want to give him as free a hand as possible in the fulfilment of his numerous and onerous duties that I want to write to him the least possible number of times, asking him for information. But when he has decided something is to be done somewhere, it seems to me members of parliament should be entitled to an answer.
There could be abuse from some members who might ask indiscreet questions. But then the staff of the crown company could easily answer, "It is up to the minister to decide whether you are entitled to that information or not."
Now, I turn to another matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the hon. member leaves that subject, would he permit a question? What is the nature of the letters to the heads of crown corporations to which those heads have failed to reply?


Jean-François Pouliot: "Who is the contractor?" "What are you doing there?"-No answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that all?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell one thing to my hon. friend, and that is that he sees patronage everywhere, but he does not know what it is. He does not know it is a heavy burden upon the shoulders of the members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which members?


Jean-François Pouliot: The members who support the government. And the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is such a hard worker that he wants to put upon himself the burden of finding something wrong everywhere.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It Is not a burden.


Jean-François Pouliot: I never thought it was a concern of mine that he has been inclined to do that, through his own good nature. I have been very much surprised to hear him make such a contribution.
Defence Production Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the minister's idea was right, that members' letters should go to his office.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell the hon. member this, that he sings the same song and repeats the same story about patronage. Hon. members who support the government and those who believe in the same doctrine are the intermediaries between the government and the people, so that the policies of the government may be most beneficial to the people. I am sure that in the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre there are some good Liberals who help the constituents of my hon. friend much better by acting as such intermediaries than does the hon. member by his numerous speeches. I do not know who they are.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member speak for the government when he makes this pronouncement about patronage?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am speaking for myself; I have no power to speak on behalf of the government. However, I am sincere in what I do, and that gives me the right to answer the hon. member. If my hon. friend continues to insist upon such picayune matters, if he insists upon asking questions about patronage in connection with crown companies, and all that sort of thing, it would destroy my argument and it would mean that members of the House of Commons do not ask serious questions, or questions requiring replies.
I have discussed the matter objectively without any thought of political partisanship. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre takes the opposite stand. He always thinks that by speaking as he does in the house he will gain more votes for the C.C.F.; and that is his great mistake.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask a question about the definition of the expression "associated government". I see that in the definition it includes any nation of the British commonwealth of nations, and also any nation which is a member of the North Atlantic treaty organization. Then it goes on to include also the government of any other country designated by order in council as being a country the defence of which is vital to the defence of Canada.
How would that be treated? This would seem to be a serious decision to be made by order in council. How would it be handled, so far as parliament is concerned?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not wish to give an answer which would be indicative of anything
922	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act that is under contemplation. However, there are in the North Atlantic treaty a group of twelve nations. The one in the Mediterranean farthest eastward is Italy. There might be something occurring in Greece that the twelve nations of the North Atlantic treaty would consider was a menace to their own security. If that took place they would be regarded as an associated government in any active resistance that was being sponsored by themselves and the nations of the North Atlantic treaty. I am just giving that as one example. It was to cover things of that kind that this extension was made to the original definition, which was limited to the commonwealth countries and the North Atlantic treaty countries.
However, it was felt that there might occur a situation where it would be regarded as being in the interests of either the commonwealth countries or the group in the North Atlantic treaty to treat some government that was not actually a party in either group as pursuing a common purpose with the rest of us.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Sometimes I am a little uncertain as to whether, when we refer to the commonwealth of nations, we include only the self-governing dominions. Would this include crown colonies?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We have no direct relations with crown colonies. The relations of Canada are with the United Kingdom, and anything that concerns a crown colony is handled through United Kingdom channels.


Mr. Wright:: I should like to ask a question concerning section 2(k) which states:
"Mark-up" means the amount added to cost in determining the selling price to cover overhead and profit.
A while ago we were talking about accelerated depreciation. If the government enters into a contract with a firm to extend its plant to produce something the government wants, and allows accelerated depreciation, it does not mean a thing to the company unless the mark-up on the price is sufficient to allow the company to take that accelerated depreciation. A company has to make a profit before it can obtain accelerated depreciation to write off the cost of its plant. What method have the government of determining whether that plant has been built economically? The government is the only buyer of the product being made. What method have the government of determining whether the plant is being operated efficiently? It seems to me that there must be great difficulty in determining what is the fair price and1 what is a fair margin to allow, and also what is a reasonable profit which should be made so that they may claim a mark-up.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mark-up applies more particularly to retail sales, where a firm buys a product and resells it to the public. I can think of no situation where accelerated depreciation would be allowed to a retailer. Where a plant is being built to turn out a product for sale to the government it is not a matter of mark-up, it is a matter of cost of production. Accelerated depreciation would not enter into the cost of production. The proprietor of a plant may have other portions of the plant that are earning a profit and he can apply the accelerated depreciation against his other earnings. He could show a loss on his business and apply the money lost to accelerated depreciation if he thought it was wise to do so.


Percy Ellis Wright: Assume that I am a manufacturer of farm machinery. I have trained personnel and have the technique to produce, say, a gun barrel. The government wants me to produce that article and will allow me accelerated depreciation to pay the cost of an additional plant and to be spread over a period of four years, as was done in the last war. How do you determine whether that plant is being constructed economically? How do you determine whether you are paying a fair price for the product which only takes care of the accelerated depreciation, which in turn allows only normal profits?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As far as construction goes, we have a large and widespread construction organization whose business it is to check the costs of construction and to see that it is carried out in an economical way. If the inspection staff reports that it believes the contract is not being well carried out, steps are taken to investigate the situation and appropriate action would follow.
Take the case of a firm making agricultural implements that is asked to make guns. How would we know what is a reasonable price for guns? The treasury cost accountants go into the plant and determine the cost of labour and the cost of material. The profit is fixed in the contract and adding together all elements of cost the price is determined accordingly. That is why we have the power of renegotiation. The cost of the guns would vary from time to time, and generally the cost is lower as time goes on.
The hon. member asks where the money would come from with which to write off the accelerated depreciation of the new plant. It probably would come from the earnings of the old plant. That is where it usually comes from. In other words, this manufacturer could take his earnings from the agricultural implement business to depreciate the new plant.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In paragraph (i) of section 2 it is stated:
(i) "government issue" means machinery, machine tools, equipment or defence supplies furnished by the minister-
Does that mean that a committee will set up priorities on machine tools as was done during the war?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have a machine tool controller, but in some cases the government buys machine tools or a certain part of a finished product and supplies it to the contractor as a free issue. That definition refers to furnished products of that kind.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And machine tools?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Sometimes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Deputy minister.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the hon. member for Temiscouata leaves the chamber I should like to speak to this section as I think he may have something to say about it as well. I disagree thoroughly with the position taken by the hon. member for Temiscouata with respect to patronage.


An hon. Member:: Have you ever tried any?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. .


An hon. Member:: What?


Stanley Howard Knowles: But I agree with the hon. member as to the importance of retaining the practice of using the civil service commission as far as it possibly can be done, even in a department such as this. I notice that section 4 provides that such officers, clerks and employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the department may be appointed in the manner authorized by law. That means they are to be appointed by the civil service commission.
Then we come to certain exceptions. The first was referred to by the hon. member for Temiscouata. I think it is a reasonable exception. It states that the minister, with the approval of the treasury board, may employ such technical or other temporary employees as he deems necessary. I take it from that that there is to be provision in special cases for the minister to engage people apart from the regular civil service regulations. The hon. member for Temiscouata pointed out that that seemed to go a long way.
In addition to that exception,, and another minor one that I need not go into, there is subsection 4 of this section which gives the governor in council the power, as I read it, to set aside the whole of subsection 3, which provides for the employment of officers, clerks
Defence Production Act and employees in the manner authorized by law, in other words by the civil service commission. That provision can be wholly set aside wherever the governor in council decides that it is not practicable to carry out the regular civil service practice.
It seems to me that there is too much of this getting away from the civil service method of appointing employees. I admit readily that the minister must pick his deputy and must appoint some of the top people who have special technical experience, but I question whether this idea of setting aside civil service procedure should be carried quite so far as seems to be envisaged by subsection 4 of section 4.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The situation is that you often can borrow men whom you cannot hire. In other words, in a tight situation it may not be possible to hire men with particular skills. They are in organizations which grant them pension rights and various other benefits inherent in those organizations. You say we should get the civil service commission to hire them, but they will not leave their jobs; they cannot very well do so. But it is often possible to borrow their services from the firms employing them, and that applies to senior and to fairly junior people. This is a temporary department, and temporary arrangements can be made for short periods. If my hon. friend will read the section he will see that the intention is to obtain those normally employed through the civil service commission to the greatest extent possible, but we have provided against the possibility of being unable to obtain suitable staff through the commission, so we will not be entirely blocked from using other means to obtain a staff.


Jean-François Pouliot: Some day I will explain to
my hon. friend how people are appointed by the civil service commission, and he will not advocate it any more. He must remember that I have said to the minister I would have no objection if he appointed everyone in the department, provided we knew how much was paid to each. That is the main point of responsibility, to inform members of parliament what is paid each civil servant. We have to render an accounting on that, and we do not have to render an accounting about appointments by the civil service commission. Members who support the government are responsible for all the appointments made by the minister, and my hon. friend champions the cause of irresponsibility when he advocates appointments by the civil service commission. He knows that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is the effect of subsection 5, particularly lines 26, 27 and 28?
924	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act Does this mean that a civil servant who is seconded, if that is the proper word, from his own department to this department will have his pension rights protected, and that deductions will be made from his salary and paid into the superannuation fund, or what is the effect of that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is exactly right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In effect he would be appointed to this department under the Civil Service Act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: He cannot be appointed to this department under the Civil Service Act. He cannot secure either permanent employment or superannuation rights by being appointed to this department, but if he is in the civil service when he comes to the department his superannuation rights are maintained while he is with the department, and he does not lose any seniority.
^r* Fulton:	And deductions for superannuation are continued automatically?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is true.


Howard Charles Green: Would this section apply to
employees of a crown corporation, or are they all outside the provisions of the section?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are one or two crown
companies whose employees have the benefits of the Civil Service Superannuation Act, but generally speaking employees of crown companies are not under that act.


Howard Charles Green: How are they employed? Does the management of a crown company employ men in the same way a private concern would?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Exactly the same.


Howard Charles Green: And the Civil Service Act is
not used at all?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Minister's authority to assign powers.
Howard Charles Green: 
in such broad terms that we believe it would permit the minister to pass on that discretion to anyone he sees fit. There is no limit; it might even be passed on to a person not in the employ of the dominion government. The section is drawn in the widest possible terms.
I do suggest that under section 4, which was just passed, provision is made for a deputy minister and any number of associate deputy ministers. Surely the type of ministerial discretion permitted under this bill should be exercised only by the minister, or his deputy, or his associate deputies. The minister, of course, has power to carry on the administration of the department in just the same way as any other minister. No one is questioning that authority; it is quite right that he should have it. But as far as we can find no other minister of the crown has this wide right to assign his powers and we believe that provision is wrong.
This afternoon the Prime Minister quoted section 5	(2) of the Essential Materials
(Defence) Act, which was passed last September. I would point out that subsection 2 of section 5 of that act is not worded in the same way at all. The provision in the act passed last fall obviously was not meant to give the minister power to turn over this wide discretionary authority to anyone he saw fit. It reads:
The minister may authorize persons to act under his control and direction on his behalf in the exercise of powers conferred on him by this act or regulation.
The sidenote is, "Minister empowered to authorize persons to act under his control." The obvious interpretation of that provision of the statute passed last year is that the discretion would be exercised by the minister; that whoever was acting for him would merely carry out the acts he authorized. Under section 5 of the present bill, however, the minister can turn over his discretionary power not only to his deputy or to an associate deputy, but to anyone he sees fit. For example an order may be issued to take over a man's business; power is taken under this act to appoint someone to do that. Under section 5 of this bill a drastic order of that kind could be made by anyone appointed by the minister. The discretion can be exercised by someone other than the minister, someone in no way responsible to parliament, upon whom we would have no check whatever.
I do suggest that the powers given the minister under this bill are such that they should be exercised by him, and that section 5 is not necessary. It is not sound legislation; it is unfair to the individual Canadian, and also unfair to parliament. We would ask that the clause be deleted.


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: Mr. Chairman, the side-note is wrong. There is no doubt that "powers to assign" probably does convey more than is intended. The hon. gentleman says it is not at all like subsection 2 of section 5 in the bill of last September. I cannot agree with him nor with his argument at all. Exactly the same words are used, but they are not used in the same order. The phraseology is the same. Instead of having a long discussion, since the hon. member thinks subsection 2 of section 5 of the bill of last September is safer than the form of section 5, I have no objection to substituting for the whole of section 5 the exact words that are in subsection 2 of section 5 of the bill of last September.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Prime Minister just what his understanding is of the right of the minister to delegate power under this section 5, subsection 2, of the Essential Materials (Defence) Act of last year? Does the Prime Minister believe that that would give the minister the right to say to Mr. John Doe in his department, "Here, John, you can appoint a controller to seize a man's business"? Is it the intention that powers of that kind can be delegated? If so, we would still object to it, because we do not believe that drastic powers of that kind should be exercised by anyone but the minister, the deputy or associate deputy minister.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is not only the intention, but it is the expression. It reads:
The minister may authorize persons to act under his control and direction on his behalf in the exercise of powers conferred on him by this act or by regulation.
He has to tell them what they can do, and they have to do it under his direction and on his behalf, and under his responsibility to parliament. In section 5 in this bill the words, "on his behalf and under his control and direction," come after the words "may authorize any person." In either case the minister has to tell them what they can do on his behalf and under his direction. He is the one who has to exercise the discretion, and be responsible to parliament for the exercise of the discretion.
Now, if it is more satisfactory to the hon. gentleman for the words to come where they come in the act that is now in force and that is going to be replaced by this bill, so that there will be no change whatever in the text, we have no objection to that. I believe that the language used in the two amounts to the same thing, and gives the minister the right to tell someone to go out and do this for him in such a way.


Howard Charles Green: Can the Prime Minister explain what authority an appointee would have to
Defence Production Act take over a man's business? I use that as an example. Is it the intention that one of these appointees, or a person who has power delegated to him by the minister, will make that decision that a certain firm is to be taken over, or must that decision be made by the minister himself or one of his deputies? I think that would get us down to the root of the matter.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: All these decisions would have to be made by the minister himself. If a firm were to be taken over, the minister would have to make the decision to take it over and then appoint someone to go out and do it.


Howard Charles Green: If that is the case, what is the objection to removing this section altogether? I do not think any of us understood that the section which was passed last summer was as wide as it appears. Why is any delegation of powers needed?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Because there are a great many things that have to be done, and have to be done in the name of the minister and on his behalf. If the hon. gentleman prefers to have it as it was worded last September, well and good. I do not think it is worth while making the change, because it is actually the same language. In neither case does it allow the minister to say to the member for Vancouver-Quadra, "You be the minister in my stead." He could not do that under the form of the section last September, nor under the form of this section. He might ask the member for Vancouver-Quadra to go and do such and such a specific thing that it would be within his power to do under the act.


Howard Charles Green: Why does the minister need to have a statutory provision of that type when none of the other departments have a similar provision? Surely the minister has the power to carry out the work of his department without having any such provision in the act? It is not in the other acts, and it was not in the act setting up the department of munitions and supply which was passed in 1939, or at least I cannot find it. Why is it necessary to have this authority in the bill at all? I do suggest to the Prime Minister that the minister does not need it to carry on the administration of his department.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: He might not need that if there had not been certain decisions in the courts that when powers are given a minister they must be exercised by him personally. Only recently in my home town of Quebec there were proceedings, I think under the Foreign Exchange Control Act, which were dismissed because a certain document was

Defence Production Act not signed by the one who was given the power to authorize the suit. Rather, it came about in this way: it was signed by him but it referred to a person who was designated personally but the judge found he was acting not in his personal capacity but acting as the official of a corporation.
There have been a number of cases where rather fine distinctions have been drawn, to dismiss the proceedings instituted by or on behalf of the crown or its agents. If something is required to be done by the minister, then this would allow the minister to say to someone who was acting as a controller or representative of a controller, you do this thing. He would then have the statutory authority to do it under the control, by the direction and on behalf of the minister, whilst without it there might be decisions that the minister had to act personally or the thing would be invalid.


Howard Charles Green: I take it, though, there is no intention of giving any of these discretionary powers under the act to an appointee under that section?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No.


Howard Charles Green: I am quite sure that the
section as it was enacted last September in the Essential Materials (Defence) Act could be construed as permitting an appointee to exercise discretionary powers. We think that is dangerous. Take, for example, the Minister of National Defence. He has a great many different kinds of jobs to do. I do not believe that under his act he has similar powers. We can find no other department which has.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would you say that the commander of the troops in the field has no discretion?


Howard Charles Green: No, I say that in the act
setting up the Department of National Defence I do not believe there is a power of this kind. Why should there be for the department of defence production?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I know that in the
Department of National Defence there should be a power of this kind, because I know there is a lot of valuable time wasted by the minister in signing things that :are put before him by his officials which have to be signed by him personally because of the terms of the act. In the reprint I believe there should be a correction of this sidenote because it might imply more than is contained in the section itself. I think it should be expressed in the same language as the sidenote in the act of last September which reads:
Minister empowered to authorize persons to act under his control.


Howard Charles Green: Certainly the wording of the act of last year is much less objectionable than the wording of the present one.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If it is, we have no desire to be any more objectionable than the situation requires. We find we have everything the situation requires in the language used in the bill last year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Prime Minister
read it again?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The section as passed
last year?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It reads:
The minister may authorize persons to act under his control and direction on his behalf in the exercise of powers conferred on him by this act or by regulation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to hear that read. Actually it seems to me that confers wider powers than the new section. I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra had better stay with the section we have.


Howard Charles Green: Had better take which?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The new one refers only to the act. The old one referred to the act and regulations.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps we had better stick to the language that is used here.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is just a sea lawyer. I do not know whether his opinion should be taken over mine.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Whether they are sea lawyers or land lawyers, hon. members can be assured that the minister in charge of this department, whoever he is, is not going to come to this house and say that any discretionary act authorized by parliament was not done by him personally.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then may I ask the Prime Minister this question. His interpretation of the section would be that it would not empower the minister to appoint a controller to exercise, shall I say, the powers of the minister under section 27 of this act.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No; certainly not to exercise the powers under section 27 of the act, unless he indicated to him how he wished to have them exercised.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is what I mean. It could not be a general delegation to exercise important powers or functions under section 27.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No.


George Alexander Drew: Without arguing as to which of the two provisions is broader, the thing that is noticeable is that this is a new provision which was not in the language of the wartime bills and there must be some reason for that. There must be some reason for the inclusion of so wide a power. The section as it stands reads as follows:
The minister may authorize any person, on his behalf and under his control and direction, to do any act or thing or to exercise any power that the minister may do or exercise under this act.
There are a number of sections which give extremely wide powers to the minister, without any supervision, by order in council. It would seem beyond question that so long as the direction from the minister was sufficiently wide, the direction could embrace any of the powers included in any one of these sections: sections 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29 and 31 (2), all of which confer extremely wide powers. It is only a case of how wide the direction is from the minister.
The Prime Minister has pointed out that there will be a mass of detail, that a minister might be called upon to sign a number of things that he should not be called upon to sign. I would point out that that was one of the reasons for setting up a munitions and supply board. Rather than abandon the ordinary procedure I suggest that there should be a board set up to deal with defence purchases. That would overcome the difficulty of requiring the minister to sign these orders. If you set up a board, you create a board with some responsibility. The danger in this particular case is that the minister is not called upon to appoint anyone who comes under the ordinary civil service provisions, whether as a permanent or temporary employee. This provision imposes, shall we say, important responsibilities on the individual in regard to secrecy and matters of that kind. In this case anyone outside such regulations could be appointed to exercise these powers. I suggest that section 5 is not only unnecessary but that it is an improper delegation of authority; that if it is intended to avoid the necessity for the signing of a great many documents by the minister, the proper way to do that is to set up a board such as the one that was set up under the munitions and .supply act, and which would meet a situation of that kind. I do not think that a section of this kind-a new one except for the act last fall which we criticized on the ground of the wide powers it gave- should be permitted to pass.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can assure my hon. friend that there was never a board under the
Defence Production Act munitions and supply act to which any power of the minister was delegated as a board.


Howard Charles Green: Would the Prime Minister be willing to insert in the section a provision excluding discretionary matters?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: No.


Howard Charles Green: That is, power to exercise discretion?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: No. I do not think the section should be weakened. We have had quite a disagreeable experience with these technical objections raised not only by sea lawyers but by other lawyers-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Mr. St. Laureni:: -and that the courts accepted. I do not think there should be any weakening of the provision here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I am the sea lawyer, Mr. Chairman, I did not raise the objection.


Mr. Fulion:: I cannot see why the Prime Minister is unwilling to include such a provision; or if the wording suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is perhaps not the right technical wording, why the Prime Minister is not willing to include in this section 5 a safeguard against such a general delegation as I referred to, namely, a general delegation to exercise the authority and powers of the minister under a section such as section 27. That is the thing I think hon. members on this side have in mind. The minister is responsible to parliament. He has to come into parliament. But a person whom he might appoint under a general delegation of power would not have to come before parliament; that I think is the feeling that we have in mind. Is there anything that could be incorporated in this section which would remove the concern we have lest this section might be used to make a general delegation of sweeping power such as I have described?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not think the concern the hon. member says he has about the possible effect of the section can conform with the language that is. used. This is not a power to make a general delegation. It is a power to appoint and designate to do any act or thing. That may be done a great many times, but it contemplates special delegation for the things the minister instructs should be done under his control.


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I ask the Prime Minister if the person so delegated by the minister may himself delegate his powers to another person?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: No. The general rule is that a delegate cannot himself delegate the powers that he has- received. This is one of
928	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act the reasons for having something to indicate that parliament has not decided that everything that could be done under the act for or on behalf of the minister had to be done by himself personally.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I confess that when I first read this section 5 I marked it as one to make some objections to as well. But in the discussion that has followed I am beginning to think that maybe it is a necessary section. What I would like to ask is this. Do the words "on his behalf and under his control and direction" apply to everything in the rest of the section?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They apply to his doing any act or thing; and they apply to his exercising any power that the minister may exercise under this act.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes. The preposition "to" is repeated before each word that is operative in the phrase "may authorize any person, on his behalf and under his control and direction, to do any act or thing, or to exercise any power."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Anything that such authorized person does must be specifically authorized by the minister and the minister must assume responsibility for it right down the line?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Absolutely.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall clause 5 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Section agreed to: Yeas 57; nays, 21.
On section 6-Advisers.


Mr. Knight:: I want to ask a question with respect to the privilege extended to civil servants, because I understand that privilege will apply to those appointed under clause 4 and under the clause now under consideration. I take this method of drawing to the attention of the committee the privilege civil servants have in regard to not meeting their just obligations, in that I understand their salaries are not subject to garnishee for debt. Perhaps it would be a good time to get the point cleared up to find out to what extent it is true.
From inquiries I have made in regard to certain flagrant cases, my understanding is that civil servants, by virtue of being civil servants, were able to incur debts in the course of their everyday living, and that there was no recourse in law to the people from whom they had those favours or that credit. Perhaps that question might be answered.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This section has nothing whatsoever to do with the question raised by the hon. member. I understand that there have been decisions that the salaries of persons in the employ of the federal government could not be garnisheed on judgments rendered against them for debts; but this makes no change one way or the other in such decisions.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Perhaps the Prime Minister did not hear my question. What I asked was whether these people would have the same privilege in that regard as civil servants now enjoy. I refer to those who are appointed under clause 4 and clause 6, namely,
Such officers, clerks and employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the department . . .
And clause 6:
. . . such members as he may appoint . . .


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That would be something for the courts to decide. It is not by virtue of any statute of the parliament of Canada that the civil servants are not subject to garnishee proceedings. It is not something that is provided by any statute of the parliament of Canada, and there is nothing being provided by this legislation in that regard.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Corporations.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Are there any corporations which were set up during the last war that the minister has in mind reviving for the purpose of this legislation, or any corporation at all that he has in mind to set up for the purpose of this legislation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The construction projects are being handled by a new crown company called Defence Construction Limited. It is in a sense a new corporation, although the charter is an old charter about to be surrendered', but used for the purpose of reviving the organization and with a new name. There may be a new crown company analogous to War Supplies Limited, which handled our purchases in Washington during the last war. That is the only one we have in mind immediately, although it may later develop that some other will be needed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the companies that may be in existence now and those which may be set up in the future be brought under the provisions of this bill? Will they be paid for materials sold by them, and will the money be kept in the corporation's hands, or will it be turned into the revolving fund which is set up by a later section of this bill?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The revolving fund neither increases nor decreases. It is simply what the names implies, a fund out of which money is paid but with that money to be recovered at a later stage and returned to the fund.
If one of the crown companies sells a product for war purposes it will sell in the normal way and be paid for it in the normal way. In other words, it is just another contractor as far as the government is concerned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The crown company is just another contractor?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand the minister to say that the moneys received by a crown company from sales of its products under a defence contract will not go into the revolving fund, but remain assets of the company and be returned to that company.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Administration of department under the minister.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is the significance of the word "exclusively" in line one of the second paragraph of clause 9? Does that indicate that the power of delegation which we have been talking about a little earlier does not apply here at all?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That was to indicate that this would be the sole agency for the government to do the things that the department or the minister, as the head of the department, is empowered by the act to do, and there would be no other procurement agencies for the objects covered by this bill.


George Alexander Drew: As a matter of explanation, why is the word "minister" used instead of the department, because the department is actually the agency of government set up for the purpose of doing these things. Why is it not proper that it should be "the department, exclusively, may buy or otherwise acquire", because in the cases where the minister is empowered to act on behalf of the department I should think that would apply, and also it would appear then clearly that it is the agency of the government that exclusively is going to do this; whereas the word "exclusively" related to the word minister might appear to give a different meaning.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In all the departments it is the minister who is given the powers to act. That is the form in which all the departments are set up. There is the Department 80709-59
Defence Production Act of Justice, but the powers to be exercised by the minister. We do however recognize some distinctions. Sometimes the minister of one department is put in charge of something that is not within his department. Thus, the Minister of Justice is the minister responsible for the administration of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That is not a part of the functions of the department; but the functions of the department are in these various statutes stated to be the powers and duty and responsibility of the minister.
I do not know that I would have drafted that section just in that way, "the minister exclusively", but that is the way in which it appeared in the munitions and supply act and in the Defence Supplies Act. The Defence Supplies Act, section 4, states:
The minister, exclusively, may buy or otherwise acquire defence supplies and construct or carry out projects required by the Department of National Defence, except
(a)	projects to be constructed or carried out by persons in the employ of His Majesty in right of Canada; and
(b)	such defence supplies or projects as the minister may, with the concurrence of the Minister of National Defence, request the Department of National Defence to procure, construct or carry out, as the case may be.
It is the form that has been usual.


George Alexander Drew: I was relating my remarks to the explanation given by the Prime Minister. As I understood what the Prime Minister said, it was to the effect that it was intended by this subsection of section 9 to make it clear that this would be the only agency for the purchase of defence supplies. If that is so, then it would seem to me that this was different from the use of the word "exclusively" as applied to the minister in the other acts, where it seemed that the use of the word "exclusively" there was really for the purpose of showing that the minister exclusively within that department would have authority to make these purchases.
I was under the impression from what the Prime Minister said that in this case it was intended to convey the understanding that only this department, and the minister of this department, would be buying defence supplies. It was for that reason that it seemed to me that the word "department" would be more suitable-or a combination of both.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It has been in this form. We possibly will not complete the whole bill tonight. This can be brought to the attention of the officers of the Department of Justice, as to whether or not it would be more workable with the word "department" added or substituted. But it is the way in which it
930	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act was expressed in the Department of Munitions and Supply Act, and the way it was expressed in the Defence Supplies Act. However, we will ask them if there would be any improvement in the substitution.


George Alexander Drew: I wish to make it clear that I
am not in this instance opposing it. I am simply seeking to avoid misunderstanding as to the use of the word, having regard to the explanation that has been given. I put it forward as a suggestion, that there is a possibility that in the other acts there was a different method, in view of the fact that there were certain defence purchases being made in other departments at that time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to raise another question in connection with section 9. I would point out that in subsection 2 (b) the expression "Department of National Defence" is used rather than the expression "the minister." It refers to such defence supplies, and so on, as the minister may "request the Department of National Defence to procure or construct."
What is contemplated in paragraph (b)? It seems to me that over the past year, and particularly during the two sessions of last year, the process was to divest the Minister of National Defence of the responsibility and the administrative concern in connection with purchases for his department, and to place them more and more under the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and now under the defence production department. Yet it seems here there is something contemplated which would reserve or hand back to the Department of National Defence the responsibility for making purchases. Would the minister explain what is meant there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That paragraph is to permit
provision for local purchases. For example we may get a letter from the Minister of National Defence addressed to me stating that it would be helpful if those concerned at a project at Suffield had the privilege of buying fresh vegetables, and asking if an allowance of $500 a month could be made for that purpose. I would write the Minister of National Defence asking him to arrange for the purchase of vegetables at Suffield to the extent of $500 a month. It simply gives permission.
Section 9 stands.
Sections 10 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
On section 14-Stockpiling.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the minister tell us the relationship between this section and section 30? I notice that section 14 refers to such materials or substances as may be designated


by the governor in council as materials or substances essential to the needs of the community of which it is advisable to maintain stock to safeguard against possible shortages thereof. When one puts that section beside section 30, which refers to essential materials and services, and defines them as those essential to meet the requirements of the defence forces of Canada, 1 think there emerges a significant difference between sections 14 and 30. It seems to me section 14 goes considerably outside the scope of mere defence production or defence purchasing. It is at least giving a very much enlarged interpretation to the word "defence" and it seems to me it raises possibilities which require some explanation.
It is the intention through section 14 to enable the minister, if material is in short supply, whether it is immediately related to defence and the immediate needs of our defence forces or not, to purchase it, and to exercise all the powers he is given under this act with respect to that material?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; the purpose of the section is to provide for the stockpiling of materials not readily available, should certain contingencies develop. For instance, it would refer to tin, which would be in short supply if Malaya fell, or to antimony, which is in short supply, or to quartz crystals, which come from certain areas that are trouble spots, and where supplies might be interrupted at critical times. This is the section which gives the minister power to acquire, store, maintain, transport and sell materials of that type.


Edmund Davie Fulton: For the community?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, for the community.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder why it is necessary to have section 14. "Essential material" is defined as a material or substance designated by the governor in council under section 30 as an essential material.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is an essential material under the act which allows the control of essential materials. But there is nothing in that section which allows the government to buy and sell strategic materials. That is the point in section 14-it authorizes the government to buy and resell.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That contemplates buying and reselling to our allies?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It might be to the general public. It is to provide stockpiles of scarce materials or materials which may become otherwise unobtainable in the event of war in certain areas.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As a matter of interest-and I think it is important-I wonder why that is

put in defence production, and why it would not normally come under the minister's functions as Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As my hon. friend will see, it comes under the general heading of "organization of industry for defence".


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15-Ministerial powers to acquire and dispose of supplies.
Edmund Davie Fulton: How is section 15 (f) to be carried out? I see that under section 16 loans are excluded, and such loans cannot be made from the revolving fund. Thus section 15 does not contain the expression "if authorized by parliament the minister may", and so on. Since the minister cannot make such loans by way of the revolving fund under section 16, from where will the money come to make the loans contemplated in section 15 (f)?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Money is appropriated by parliament for that purpose. Certain moneys have been appropriated under the national defence vote. If it is necessary to give capital assistance to a project it can be given only by obtaining money from the Department of National Defence. For example, we found it necessary to finance the Orenda plant in Toronto. That money was sent over as an encumbrance on the vote of the Department of National Defence. In the estimates for next year there may be a vote for capital purposes under the defence production department but, if so, it will be placed before parliament and voted on in the usual way.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I should ask this question of the Prime Minister. Is it usual when such advances are to be authorized that they can be made only if an appropriation is passed by parliament? Is it not usual to preface these paragraphs with the words, the minister, when authorized by parliament, may" so there win be no question that it cannot be done out of the revolving fund or by general authority?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: To have the words, "the minister, when authorized by parliament" would mean that each individual advance would have to be authorized by parliament. If parliament sees fit to make a sum available it will not be part of the revolving fund that is to be provided by this bill. It is something that will have to be brought up each year in the form of a special vote in the estimates. If there is no vote appearing in the estimates, loans cannot be made. As has been discussed already, there was some $50 million provided for advances on defence production. The application of parts of that $50 million could be made under this, but unless there is a fund
80709-59J
Defence Production Act provided, capital assistance cannot be taken out of the revolving fund that this bill contemplates.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The Prime Minister says,
"unless there is an item in the estimates." These expenditures would not come before parliament and parliament would not have a chance to vote on them.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If in this bill a certain amount was being asked for for capital advances there would be no requirement for an estimate. We do not think that there should be anything asked for at this time beyond the revolving fund. We think that the revolving fund provided for in the next section can be satisfactorily explained. It is to be a revolving fund merely for temporary and provisional use, to be reimbursed by the department or the associated government or whoever it is that gets the finished product. As we had no specific capital advance in contemplation that we could bring to parliament we did not think it was proper to ask for any in this bill. We think we should have to bring in that estimate and possibly say to parliament what the plans are and why the estimate is being requested.


Howard Charles Green: If that is the case, why is it necessary to include this power in the bill before us?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We are setting out here what will be the powers of the minister. Of course we enjoy these discussions, but we would rather have no more of them than are required. We are asking for the powers with which the minister may be clothed in order to carry out such things as are apt to be required. But the powers will not be exercised unless parliament provides some department with funds that can be used as capital advances. If parliament provides the Department of National Defence with funds that may be used as capital advances, they will have to be handled by the Minister of National Defence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of National
Defence has been given authority to make commitments, I think up to about $500 million, in future years. Could that authority be used to cover advances under this section 15?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If there was a loan to be made it could not be made under the commitments. There can be tooling up or tools purchased by the Department of National Defence out of funds provided to that department in order to facilitate the production of certain things required by the department. In connection with the Orenda engine there

Defence Production Act have been acquired by the Department of National Defence tools which are used in the plant to produce the engines.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That would be regarded as a capital advance?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That would be regarded, not as a loan but as an advance payment on engines to be delivered to the department.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You say that that would come out of the estimate or appropriation under the estimates?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There have been earmarked out of the commitments certain sums that will be part of the purchase price of the Orenda engine.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-Defence production revolving fund.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to make a comment, ask a question and inquire as to the possibility of having some change made in section 16. I hope the fact that sections such as 15, 11 and others have been passed with almost no comment on our part is a clear indication that we meant what we said when we indicated that we wanted to give generous powers and to make this act workable. I understand that what will happen under the operation of the revolving fund will be that a working capital of $100 million will be set up, and then there will be incomings and outgoings for various purposes which I shall not read and detail at the moment. I want to be sure that my understanding is correct that parliament will really have no knowledge of the operations which take place until eventually they are recorded in the public accounts. If I am correct in that, then I go on to-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I told the hon, member for Vancouver-Quadra that I would be glad to insert a section providing for an annual report of the department. Such annual report would certainly give the position of the revolving fund. If the department enters into a contract on behalf of the Department of National Defence or with any foreign government then by means of this revolving fund it can finance the contract temporarily, pay the contractors promptly and make demand on the Department of National Defence when there is a finished product to offer. If it conducts its affairs prudently, as we try to do, there should be no loss to the department. It is simply a temporary accommodation. It would be quite illegal or improper to use it for any permanent commitment of any kind. For instance, we could not use it for capital investment purposes.

It must be money that will come back into the fund with reasonable promptness, not later than the completion of the asset which is being built.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister's agreement to make an annual report certainly would be an improvement. Nevertheless, as I tried to suggest the other evening, it seems to me there is a whole world of difference between what went on during the war and what goes on now. That is so for this very simple reason, as I see it, that the minister is now organizing the functions of his department to complete the three year defence plan which was outlined by the Minister of National Defence. I cannot understand why it is not possible for the minister of the new department to come to this house with his estimates for the year. There would have to be a good deal of leeway, I should think; probably there would have to be quite a large amount of working capital, and perhaps this $100 million is not too much. But I am suggesting that along with that I see no reason why the minister could not come to this house in very large measure exactly as the Minister of National Defence does and say "I have certain expenditures to make this year, and I have certain commitments."
Let me give an illustration which I ventured to give the other evening. Let us take the matter of uniforms. A certain number of uniforms will be required next year by the Department of National Defence, and I should imagine the number would be known pretty accurately now. If that is so the minister of defence production will have to supply the raw materials; I understand that would be part of the functions of this department. I am quite unable to understand why that item could not be brought in here and approved as an estimate of this department, just as the national defence estimates are brought in. Let me say again that I have not, nor has anyone else in this party, any intention of chiselling, of trying to hold the minister down to such a point as to make his task impossible, or even difficult. Would it not be reasonable to ask the minister to bring in his estimates as far as that may be humanly possible?
Another point I want to raise is whether there is any reason why contracts, as they are made, should not be laid on the table of this house? I will come to the question of security in a moment. That question was raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. My suggestion, supported by what I have observed in connection with the Minister of National Defence and other ministers of the government, is that in this country where things are done as publicly as they are, we are just fooling ourselves if we imagine they are not known by

our potential enemies. Therefore to say we are giving away anything by bringing an estimate into this house is just contrary to what we believe to be the facts.
Let me put this to the minister and to the Prime Minister as something I hope can be done. Some of us feel very earnestly that the rights of parliament are perhaps too lightly dealt with at times. On the other hand I believe we have shown that we have a practical approach to this matter, and that we want to enable the minister of defence production to carry out his important function.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may answer the last question first, I think the number of contracts for defence supplies placed last year runs to about 80,000. There is no objection to putting the 80,000 on the table, but my hon. friends knows he can get any contract placed by the department of defence production by simply asking for it on the order paper and having it made a return.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I intended to specify contracts above a certain amount. We would not want to make the thing ridiculous, of course.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Unless the limit was pretty high you would still have a tremendous number of contracts laid on the table. If my hon. friend has a reasonable request and puts it on the order paper, it will be considered; he will be told the amount of work involved, and if he still wants it he will get it. There is no desire whatever to hold back information from the house as far as contracts are concerned. As to the proposal that instead of a revolving fund the department of defence production should have a vote to cover these expenditures-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As far as
possible. I did not exclude some part of a revolving fund.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We will assume you mean to have a vote.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And a commitment, like
national defence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That would mean a complete duplication of the estimates. Without specific authorization there is no way you can revolve money in a government account. In other words money received in a department does not go to that department; it goes to the Receiver General of Canada. The money is paid from the funds voted by parliament. In other words there are two separate accounts, one for receipts and the other for expenditures, and you are never allowed to transfer funds from one to the other. It means a good deal of padding of the estimates in any event; but to use that kind of
Defence Production Act accounting for what we require in the department of defence production would pretty well mean that we would have to get money voted to the Department of National Defence and also have money voted to the department of defence production in order to carry out the projects, or else continue to follow the plan we have been following and require a complete transfer of the full cost of a project before we can commence to carry it out. We are trying to get away from the latter. It is simply a matter of mechanics, and we have to get legislation because without it the process is quite unworkable.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am afraid I have not made myself clear, and I do not think the minister has completely understood me. I quite recognize that the minister will require a certain amount of working capital, that there will have to be something in the nature of a revolving fund covering part of his activities. That will be necessary, for instance, under section 16 (a), to pay the cost of acquisition, maintenance, transportation of stocks of materials, and so on. Later on it provides that these may be sold. So I realize that there must be working capital and a certain leeway in that respect. On the other hand I do suggest that a very considerable portion of what the minister is going to spend will be for materials the need for which is known in advance. Indeed, it seems to me that comes directly within what the Prime Minister was describing a few minutes ago in connection with the estimate covering the Orenda engines. All we are endeavouring to do, without interfering with the undertakings the emergency demands, is to preserve as far as possible the right of parliament to scrutinize expenditures. I think the minister will agree that if section 16 is carried as is, parliament will have no control of any kind over the expenditures that are made, except in authorizing the original $100 million, and except in cases where losses are incurred, when the legislation says they must come back to parliament.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will permit me to interject for a moment, he will have exactly the same control over expenditures that he has without the revolving fund. That fund is simply a mechanism. It is not the minister of defence production who buys and pays for these articles. He buys them temporarily, but he acts as agent for the Department of National Defence. That department has an appropriation to cover any purchases, and in the end they pay for them. In the meantime, rather than get the money from them in advance to pay our contractors, we will have this revolving fund available to
934	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act cover interim payments. Through its use we can deliver the finished article to the defence department at the time we exact payment for it. The revolving fund has no significance as far as spending public money is concerned. In the last war we had a bulk appropriation for all war purposes. We would get an appropriation of perhaps $300 or $400 million. The revolving fund came out of that appropriation, that is a certain amount of it was used as a revolving fund. It did not represent expenditures, but simply meant the temporary use of money. We did it under the War Measures Act. We made provision so that the money could be used as a revolving fund, and eventually charged to the recipient of the goods. That is all we are asking now- that the revolving fund be spelled out and an amount fixed by parliament to be used for that purpose.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Surely it is true, notwithstanding what the minister has said-he has described the way the fund is used and the way the defence department will eventually get an appropriation and repay the fund; items will go in and out. What I am still asking and pointing out to the minister is that all that goes on without any knowledge or control by parliament. I am still asking whether in respect of a great deal of that it cannot be done in the estimates. Could it not be done in the manner that the estimates for the Department of National Defence are handled at the present time? I believe it can. Will the minister be good enough to take a look at it in that sense and let this section stand?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Surely my hon. friend can understand that the department of defence production does not buy anything for itself. It simply acts as an agent.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: It may buy
with your permission.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It may buy stationery or something like that, but ordinarily it buys for someone else. It does not get an appropriation from parliament to buy things; that is done by other departments. The defence department gets an appropriation to buy things through the agency of the defence production department.
A foreign government may request something and make arrangements with parliament to pay for it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about stockpiling?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We would get an appropriation for stockpiling.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister
says his department does not buy things, so there is no point in bringing in estimates. Let [Mr. Howe.)

us take the illustration I gave, and there must be a hundred like it, the question of material for uniforms. Is there any reason why you should not come to parliament this year and say that you want so many millions of dollars to buy textiles for uniforms? Is there any reason why that should not happen? If it can happen in that case, is there any reason why it should not happen in a great many others?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I said before, we could do that. We could get an appropriation from parliament to buy cloth, and then in the usual course of events the cloth would be made into uniforms which would be delivered to the Department of National Defence. The full cost of the uniforms would be returned to the department of defence production, and then you have a double entry-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then you have voted the money twice.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the only way it can be done without the revolving fund. You are then in the position of voting the money twice.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Surely, the minister is elevating the thing-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not, and if my hon. friend will think it over and come back and say he has got someone to explain it to him, I am prepared to let the clause stand. It is so clear to everyone else in the house. I hope he will not insist on standing it over.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sorry
the minister is so troubled by my stupidity, but I am really unrepentant. I am not impressed by the bookkeeping difficulties, and I am quite sure the minister is not either. You can always make books agree with common sense.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am concerned because,
unfortunately, we have to comply with the statutes of the government, the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. Under the rules of that act if money is appropriated for a purpose, spent for that purpose and later refunded, it does not go back into the pot but goes back to the Receiver General of Canada. Therefore, you have made the appropriation for cloth and you have also made an appropriation for the completed uniform, which is a duplication of appropriation. It is a fine way to pad your estimates if you want to show you are spending a lot for the war, but it does not represent real expenditure.	[DOT]


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not understand why this
cannot all be done through the Department of National Defence. They have detailed

items in the estimates for say $500 million, and then they have $300 million or $400 million commitment authority.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then, if the $500 million
detailed in	the items	is	not sufficient, whycannot the	minister,	as	I understood	the
practice described by the Prime Minister in the case of the Orenda engine, simply make an advance from the commitment authority?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do not ask me why, because
there is no reason at all. That is the way we do it at the present time. It is a very cumbersome way of doing it, and it means we cannot	move on	a	contract until	weactually get	the money in	our possession.	In
other words, we have to ask the Department of National Defence to pay for the materials before we can start to buy. We must have the cheque in our hands. We have no funds with which to operate, and the only way we could pay for the goods is to get funds in advance. No one can be sure what a thing is going to cost. It is a very cumbersome way of doing it, and there is a better way of doing it. It is the way we operated in the last war, and it avoids the difficulties of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. It meets with the approval of the Department of Finance and the Auditor General. Why it should be so difficult for this house to understand, I cannot imagine.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not understand why a
method which apparently worked in the last war, and which provided that the money should be appropriated by parliament, should become cumbersome so suddenly.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have pointed out that during the last war we used the War Measures Act-


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, the War Appropriations
Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not the War Appropriations
Act. Will my hon. friend permit me to explain how we did it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is what I am trying to
get from you.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then do not try to tell me. In the last war, under the War Measures Act, we got from the treasury an appropriation which could be used in a revolving fund. The War Measures Act overrode the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, so we were able to make that arrangement. This time we are doing it by act of parliament. It is a simple way of operating, and there is no lack of check by parliament because we are not allowed to make non-recoverable expenditures from this fund. It is simply a provision
Defence Production Act to use the money temporarily from this fund, and return it when the finished article is completed. It seems quite simple to me.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: A short time ago the minister said that the loans were returned to the revolving fund with reasonable profit. I believe he said that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is nothing about loans. We buy the components. We can buy cloth for uniforms. After we deliver the uniforms we get paid for them, and then we are able to restore the cost of the cloth to the revolving fund.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I thought the minister said "with reasonable profits" and that is what I want to get. What did he mean by that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just as promptly as we can finish the article.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But you said "with reasonable profit".


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said that we did not take any long-term commitments on the revolving fund. I did not say "profits" ; I said with reasonable promptness.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Could we take advantage of the minister's offer to let the section stand until we have looked over what he said tonight, and what he said on Friday? Perhaps then I can understand it. I do not understand it at the moment, and I do not mind admitting it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just to make sure that I have the picture clearly, may I ask if it is this way? Parliament controls the expenditure of money for defence purposes by the control it exercises over the estimates of the Minister of National Defence. The Department of National Defence uses that money to buy supplies. It buys these supplies mostly if not wholly from the department of defence production. What we are doing by this revolving fund is enabling the department of defence production to pile up stores or goods so that it will be possible for the Minister of National Defence to purchase them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Buy off the shelf, yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, the total assets of the department of defence production must remain constant. Any money that has been spent must be replaced either by goods on the shelves or by getting the money back from the Department of National Defence; and we exercise complete control over that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a clear explanation; yes. That is accurate.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But it does not cover the whole situation; that is all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is too simple for the hon. member.
936	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There are several things that have not been mentioned here at all. There are several other powers that the minister has for the spending of money. Let me read subsection (b), among other things:
(b)	to pay the cost of acquisition, storage or maintenance of defence supplies requisitioned for payment out of an appropriation or by an agent of His Majesty or to be paid for by an associated government-
And so on. Then paragraph (c):
(c)	for loans or advances authorized under this act for any purpose other than to assist in the construction, acquisition, extension or improvement of capital equipment or works by any person.
I should like to ask the minister to make good. I should like to accept the suggestion of a few minutes ago. We have other clauses under this bill. I will certainly undertake to try to come to the minister's view as far as I can. If this section can be left over until tomorrow, I will come in then and if I am wrong I shall be glad to say so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Very well. On that understanding, we can let it stand.
Section stands.
On section	17-Contracts only upon
ministerial requisition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask one question about section 17. It relates to subsection 5 over at the bottom of page 10. It may be that there are clauses like this in other acts but I have not noticed them before. Subsection 5 reads as follows:
Where the minister is authorized to enter into a contract on behalf of His Majesty under this act, the contract may be entered into in the name of His Majesty or in the name of the minister.
Is that a necessary clause? I do not mind the minister getting all the kudos that is ccming to him, but he seems to have been put ot, the same plane as His Majesty, in that clause.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. That is not the explanation. The explanatory note says: To remove doubt and ambiguity which arises out of various forms submitted for Department of Munitions^ and Supply contracts. It is simply to make it clear that if the form says the minister or His Majesty, it means the same thing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Where does the minister find that explanatory note?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is in my copy; it is not in yours.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If we delete that provision, then it would be the case that every contract would have to be entered into in the


usual form, His Majesty the King in the right of the Dominion of Canada, as represented by the minister of defence production. Would not that be so?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. That is the intention. It is to cover mistakes that are sometimes made when the form is not clear; but it is not important. If it disturbs anybody it could be omitted. We have got along without such a clause up until this time, and we can get along without it in the future.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the minister is willing to
accommodate us to that extent, then the subsection might be deleted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I noted that the minister's
explanation related to forms in the past which had been worded in such a way that there was some question as to their legality. Surely we are dealing now with the setting up of a new department, and the forms that were used by the Department of Munitions and Supply will not be used by the department of defence production.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think we can get along without it; if there is any objection to it, we can cut it out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to say that we are
not being sticky about terms. We know that the words "His Majesty" mean the government of the country; and on that basis I think it would be better if the minister still did these things in the name of His Majesty rather than in his own name.


James Ross Fulton: I have an amendment here
which I have prepared on this question and which I would move, unless the minister prefers to make it himself, a course which would be quite acceptable.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What is it?


James Ross Fulton: It is as follows:
That section 17 of Bill No. 77 be amended by deleting subsection 5 thereof.
If the minister cares to adopt it and move it, that is quite acceptable.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. Make your own motion.


James Ross Fulton: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it the pleasure
of the committee to accept the amendment?


Mr. Wylie:: I did not hear a thing that the hon. member said. In order to vote, we should know what we are voting on.


James Ross Fulton: Perhaps I should say to the
hon. member that it is unusual that we find ourselves in agreement; I dropped my voice, I must admit.

I move, seconded by the hon. member tor Vancouver-Quadra:
That section, 17 of Bill No. 77 be amended by deleting subsection 5 thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister this
question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Having tasted blood, don't go
after something else, because we will not do it.


Howard Charles Green: What is that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I say this: Don't use that taste of blood as a basis for going after something else. What is it you want to do?


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain why
it is necessary to have subsection 4 in the terms in' which it is? It seems to me that in each contract any general conditions should, in fairness to the contractor, be set out as a schedule to the contract. What is the need for putting in a clause like that which really just says that general conditions as specified shall apply?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Everyone is familiar with the general form. It allowed a great deal of paper work to be omitted. The procedure is approved by the Department of Justice as a shortcut, to shorten the form of the contract.


Howard Charles Green: How would the contractor know just what the general conditions are?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Usually the contractor is contracting constantly with the department. The various forms used are so well known to the contractor that there would usually be no difficulty about it. It is simply a covering form that is put in by the Department of Justice.


William Joseph Browne: Paragraph (b) of subsection 1 seems to be contradictory to section 5 that we were discussing at some length this evening. It take it that it means what it says. It reads as follows:
(b) The requisition shall be signed by the minister or the minister of the department concerned if the estimated expenditure, loan or guarantee exceeds fifty thousand dollars, but otherwise may be signed by his deputy or other officer authorized by him;
Section 5 reads as follows:
The minister may authorize any person, on his behalf and under his control and direction, to do any act or thing or to exercise any power that the minister may do or exercise under this act.
I take it that section 5 does not apply here.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


William Joseph Browne: I ask that for purpose of clarification.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the clause as amended carry?
Defence Production Act


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, I asked a question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said no, it does not apply to that clause. It is a rule of government that any contract over $50,000 must be signed by the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.
On section 20-Relief from, claims for patent or industrial design infringement.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain section 20? I think that is a new one, is it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was handled under two orders in council last time. The claims under patent rights were turned over to the commissioner of patents for settlement. This is a section requiring anyone with a patented article to submit his claim to the commissioner of patents.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.
On section 23-Person refusing contract may be ordered to comply.
Howard Charles Green: This is the clause which permits the minister to direct a person to contract with the government even although he does not wish to do so. In my opinion that is one clause which should not be used under present conditions. It is a clause which would certainly be used if we were in a war, but it goes very far. I would ask whether some provision could not be written into the bill to the effect that this clause would be brought into effect only by proclamation rather than making it part of our peacetime statute law.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, Mr. Chairman. We had cases in the last war where people would refuse to make, for instance, government cloth. They could do much better making luxury cloths, and we had to use the powers of the act on one or two occasions. I think we took one man to court to enforce it. It is a case of making all contractors in the trade take the good with the bad, and it is a very proper provision to have in the act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I be permitted to go back to clause 21 for a moment? Does that clause follow the experience which was had after the war in the rewriting of contracts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; it is the same clause exactly as we had in the munitions and supply act.
938

Defence Production Act I may say that under that clause we recaptured something between $600 million and $700 million for the crown as a result of renegotiation of contracts.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We must have been very generous, with them first.


Howard Charles Green: Clause 2 of section 23 provides that where there is a loss of goods stored the person in charge of the storage company is liable as though he had agreed to store them for reward. Why is that provision there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: You would not want any other understanding, would you? You may force a man to store goods, but surely the fact that you forced him to store goods does not give him a licence to sell the goods, to remove the goods or to let anybody else do so.


Howard Charles Green: If he did that it would be a criminal offence. But suppose they were accidentally destroyed?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the clause carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 24 to 26 inclusive agreed to.
On section 27-Appointment of controller.
Edmund Davie Fulton: This section contains some pretty wide powers of appointment of controllers to take over the business of a person who the minister is satisfied has failed, or is likely to fail, to perform the contract efficiently and in a businesslike manner, or when a person who has been directed to enter into a defence contract is likely to fail to perform it to the satisfaction of the minister. Therefore you have a double element of compulsion: firstly, the person can be directed to take the contract, even though we have not a war, according to the definition; and secondly, having been directed to take it, the minister can then say: I do not think you are going to perform it efficiently, and I therefore appoint a controller to take over your business. That controller can take over, according to the clause as it stands, not only that part of the business which relates to or is necessarily a part of the defence contract, but the whole of the business. There is no limitation on the power at all.
It seems to me that the power is unnecessarily wide. I should think that the minister might be willing to accept some limitation upon the power, not to bind the controllers, but on the powers which these controllers may exercise; because, Mr. Chairman, if you


look at the last words of paragraph (c) of subsection 1 of section 27 you will see that:
The minister may authorize another person (in this act called a "controller") to carry on, until the minister otherwise directs, the whole or any part of the business of that person.
Then, if you look at subsection 2 you will see that the controller can be directed by the minister to:
Do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of carrying on the business or that part thereof.
In other words, he can be directed to do anything with respect to the whole of the business, even though only part of the business is related to or necessarily involved in the defence contract.
Again, in clause 2 there is no limitation upon the time within which the controller shall maintain control and direction of the business, so that it may be extended. There is nothing here to indicate that the power to control, and the control of the business, will terminate when the contract is performed or the direction is complied with.
While I am not going to make an argument at the moment as to whether or not that tremendous power should be given, I should like to ask the minister or the Prime Minister whether he does not think that it would be acceptable to place there a limitation which would specifically restrict the powers of the controller to that part of the business necessarily concerned with the defence contract or the direction; and secondly, to limit the power of the controller to such time as the defence contract may be performed or the direction may be in existence, so that when the contract is fulfilled it automatically would follow that the controller is no longer in power over that business? You would not then cut down what is desired, as I understand it, namely, the power to get the contract performed. It would mean that you could not go any further than that, and could not control the business after the contract had been performed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. I think any restriction would tend to defeat the objective of the clause. In the last war we had a good many contractors, some strong and some weak. They got into trouble one way or another. Perhaps they were not keeping their books properly. Perhaps they were diverting the money from one operation to another, or perhaps they were just incompetent and were rapidly going bankrupt. We had cases of that kind. We put a controller in on a good many of them. Ordinarily you cannot separate the business into one part one thing and another part another. Usually, if it is under the same

roof it is interrelated. I do not know of any cases where we put a controller in that he did not take charge certainly of all operations under one roof. He stays there. It may take a long time. I had one controller in one plant for three years, until he got the plant out of insolvency and back into operation efficiently where it was able to settle its accounts with the government.
The government is responsible for the acts of any controller it appoints. If any man thinks a controller makes things worse instead of better he can take the government into court. I think there is ample protection for the public. We have not had any complaint. I know of no case where a controller has not straightened out a bad situation and left it much better than he found it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not objecting to the right to appoint a controller, or to instruct or require that controller to straighten out the business, to use the minister's own terms, for the performance of the defence contract. But I find here, I repeat, no limitation on the extent to which he can take possession of the business. It may not necessarily be a big business in the sense of big industry. It may be a business engaged in two or three separate activities under the one company or the one individual; and yet the clause here gives power to appoint a controller to take over the whole of the business, even though the other parts are not in any way concerned with or related to the defence contract, or direction, about which the minister is concerned. If the minister will consider the thing I am sure he will agree that there is a possibility of limitation on the power there to make it clear that the appointment relates only to that part of the business concerned with the war contract or the direction.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will give my hon. friend a
specific case, if he likes. How would he handle this? A very sizeable rubber company happened to be the sole manufacturer in Canada of a product needed for the war. They asked for an increase in the price of that commodity. The situation was examined, and the price increase was refused, with the result that the company stopped making the commodity refusing to make it at the lower price. A controller was put in to operate the entire business. He had been there a week, and the company then decided it would manufacture the article at the price specified. The controlled retired. What kind of limitation would my hon. friend suggest that would prevent action of that kind?
Defence Production Act Mr. Green:	The minister said this afternoon that, to date, there had been no case in which it was necessary to use this power to take over a business.


Clarence Decatur Howe: emergency?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Howe:
Do you mean in the present
Yes.
No.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention to exercise
this drastic power while we are under present conditions, or would that be exercised only in the event of war?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, so far as defence production is concerned, it is war. It does not matter whether there is shooting in Europe, or shooting all over the place, we are on a drive to produce munitions of war as rapidly as we can. It is God's mercy that there is no general shooting going on. It gives us a better chance to do what we have to do. Nevertheless there is no difference between a state of war and a state of all-out production of munitions for a period of three years.


Howard Charles Green: Of course that is not the plan on which the government is working with regard to their emergency powers or with regard to their manpower.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We do not deal with manpower under this bill.


Howard Charles Green: I beg your pardon?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the way we are working under this act.


Howard Charles Green: Obviously it is a different
approach in the drafting of this act. I take it that it is the minister's intention, if he insists upon this power, to step in and take over a man's business, whether he has a defence contract, or whether he has only been directed by the minister that he must do work for the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: And even though it is only considered that he is likely to fail to carry out the contract. It is not only in the case of his having failed to carry it out; if the minister feels he is likely to fail, then the minister wants the power to step in and take over his business.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


George Alexander Drew: There is one feature in this that it seems to me should be borne in mind, and it has to do with the general observations that were made about this measure earlier. The remark was made by the hon. member

Defence Production Act for Vancouver-Quadra that the whole approach seemed to be different from that in connection with other considerations that were before the house.
I do not believe that those are unrelated. What seems to be so obvious is the disproportion between the extent of the measures called for here and the attitude of the government in regard to other matters connected with defence which are certainly of equal importance. If it is so necessary to take that sweeping power in connection with production, then it seems to me strangely disproportionate and unreal to have so little regard for the state of our defence forces.
The attitude toward the defence forces is that we are in a position where we can go forward under reasonably normal conditions in that respect. Here we have before us powers so wide and so sweeping that, as the minister has said, there is really no difference between what we are asked for here and what we would have in an all-out shooting war.
Let us see how far this goes. It is not only that the minister may decide that he thinks someone is going to fail-which is a very sweeping power at a time when we are told we should still seek to impress upon the minds of the public that we are not really in a state which approximates an all-out struggle -but it goes further. I would call this particularly to the attention of the Prime Minister.
In section 27(2) there is provision that where a controller has been appointed to carry on a business or a part thereof he shall be deemed to be the agent of the owner thereof for the purpose of carrying on the business. Now, let us see exactly how far that goes. He is not merely the representative of the government; he is the agent of the owner. As the agent of the owner he is in a position to impose upon the owner all the legal consequences of that agency, whether it is to the benefit of the owner or not. This goes much further than merely saying that the controller may go in and carry on the business.
It does not seem to me that we should go so far in the first place as to say that the minister may take over the business, even where he thinks it would fail, without any positive demonstration that this would happen or, in the second place, that he may appoint someone who then becomes an agent, not for the government but for the owner, and who, by that agency, will impose upon the owner the full consequences of whatever he does.
Then, of course, the most serious aspect is that under a broad provision in the bill he is

relieved of any responsibility for what he does. I know objection is taken to the suggestion that these are powers of an extreme nature. But surely this is a power of the most extreme nature. Here is a position where a business may be directed to perform a particular contract, and may then find itself in the position where, if the minister thinks it may likely fail to carry out that contract, he may have a controller appointed. That controller becomes, not the agent of the government, and consequently one who would be in a position where, whatever responsibility the government might have, would carry through to the agent, but he is the agent of the owner. As the agent of the owner he can carry on that business and enter into contracts which may be most detrimental to the future interests of the owner. The owner would be in the position where he could not recover in any way from the agent, as is provided in a subsequent section of the bill.
I suggest that this section is not only something that should not be contemplated, except in an extreme situation, but something which should not be contemplated in any event. The minister made one statement to the effect that there was no difference between the present situation and the situation there would be in an all-out war. I suggest there is one very great distinction, that we are still left under no immediate threat of interference with our ordinary communications. We are not at the present time under any threat that ships which carry supplies to these shores or away from these shores will be interfered with. For all practical purposes we are operating on our normal daily activities in those various occupations in which the people of this country are engaged. I submit that, vitally important as speed may be in defence production, there is nothing in the present state of affairs in this country to justify a power of that kind.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member has
suggested that there is a difference in the attitude taken in this connection and that taken in connection with defence forces. The difference is that with respect to procurement parliament is to be asked to provide for the fulfilment of a program of about $5 billion over a period of three years, and it is considered that the fulfilment of that program is just as vital as it would be if the program had to be fulfilled during a period of actual war. That is, it is the fulfilment of the program which is considered as the thing which should be done as a deterrent against aggression.
There are many of us who feel that it is just as important to do everything that may

be helpful to deter aggression as it would be to do everything that might be required to win a war, if the attempt to deter the aggression did not succeed.
Now, with respect to defence forces, everything that will be required to build them up to the standard contemplated for the deterring effect will be just as important. The information we have is that that is going to be done by the methods now being employed. It would be only to build up greater forces than those that are now agreed upon as being the proper contribution to this deterring effect that other methods of building up the armed forces would be required. If and when it is felt that the armed forces have to be built up beyond what can be done by the methods presently being followed, other methods will be adopted.
Within those limitations the implementation of the $5 billion program is regarded as quite as important as if there were a fighting war going on. We have the experience of the last war. Many hon. members know that it was necessary to use these powers to overcome the resistance of a former member of parliament who did not want to do his share in his plant of what was required from the particular industry in which he was engaged. It required powers of this kind to compel him to do his part in the production of that particular kindi of goods.
If parliament takes the attitude that it is as important to make this contribution to the deterring effect of this build-up, then I think the methods appropriate to succeed should be available. This is a clause similar to the one to be found in the munitions and supply act, to which recourse was had.
Actions that are taken in the exercise of powers of this kind are quickly known to the public. I am convinced that no such action will be taken that those taking it will not be in position to justify and defend1 in this place. We are meeting now and we are going to meet again and all these actions will be subject to the closest scrutiny and to proper criticism by members of the opposition.
It was necessary to have these powers in order to succeed in the last war, although there were not a great many occasions when they had to be used. It was felt by a former member of this house that they just could not be used, but he finally came around and did his bit as was being done by others in the same industry.
If the suggestion of the hon. member for Kamloops were adopted it would have to be expressed in words that would have the same objectionable feature. It would have to be
Defence Production Act the minister who would exercise discretion as to what part of an enterprise it was necessary to put under a controller. The discretionary power would have to be granted or it would not work. You could not have it left to an outside authority to say that the controller could go to a certain point and no further. It would have to be left to the authority created and empowered by parliament to determine what part it was necessary to control in order to bring about the result. That would imply some discretion, as is covered here, as to whether it would be the whole or part of the business that would be controlled.
The only other words that could be added would be, "or such parts as the minister may feel is necessary for the purpose envisaged", and that would not be any more protection than there is already.


James Ross Fulton: I think that there is a possibility of framing an amendment, either along the lines suggested by the Prime Minister or to restrict it to such part as is necessarily occupied with the business. Then the instructions given to a controller would have to be carefully drawn as to whether the whole business, if it were taken over, was necessary to ensure the performance of the work or the compliance with the direction. I do think it is important to have some such limitation in this bill.
With respect to what the Prime Minister has just said, I think this goes beyond what was in the munitions and supply act. Under that act the actions of an investigator were exempt from challenge in the courts, but under this bill the actions of a controller are similarly exempt. Section 36 reads:
No controller or investigator is responsible at law for any act or thing done by him in good faith in the performance of his duties or the exercise of his powers under this act and no action may be taken against a controller or investigator in respect thereof.
After he is appointed no one can question under the bill as it is now drawn whether it was necessary for him to take over all of a plant or to exercise control over it for the length of time which he thinks he should. If he injures the business beyond what is necessary, apart altogether from the compliance with the war contract, no one can hold him responsible.
In view of these circumstances I am convinced that it is necessary to amend the section. It can be amended in a way which will not affect or diminish the power to get war contracts performed but which would preserve the rights of the individual with respect to those parts of his enterprise which

Business of the House are not necessarily connected with the performance of that contract. I believe such an amendment can be drawn and I propose to move one.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will move third reading of Bill No. 24, to confer certain emergency powers upon the governor in council. Then we will continue with this

bill. Then Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935; Bill No. 6, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways; Bill No. 76, to amend the Radio Act, 1938, and Bill No. 80, to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act. If we complete those we will take up the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Finance concerning foreign exchange control.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 6, 1951